PROTECTIYE SYSTEM 

CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH 

ii * 

THE PRESENT TARIFF, 

IN A SERIES OF TWELVE ESSAYS, 


■r 

(lEnOE 

4HJ 

73 




RIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE WASHINGTON UNION OVER THE SIGNATURE OF 


^BUNDELCUNDV’ 


WRITTEN BY THE HON. EDMUND BURKE. 


WASHINGTON : 


PRINTED BY J. AND G. S. GIDEON. 





q in 
i-sins 

- j- i 


I 

• * I 




w 




» 













\ 





I -V 
X f 


i . 









V 


or 


ESSAYS. 


No. 1, ^Introduction — Origin of the word tariff- — its present signification — A tax — Difference between a tariff' 
^ tax and a direct tax. 

I shall, by way of introduction, address a few words to you, sir, the Editor of the “Union.” 
to ^ ^ rejoiced to observe the stand taken by you, i^ the columns of your excellent and valuable paper^ 
and r subject of the tariff. And, let me add, that you have assumed the true position before the 

2 tg (. erican people, in relation to that vexed and troublesome question. If I understand your views, as 
of ta. '^6ssed in the columns of your paper, you are in favor of a revenue tariff, and against & protective tariff; 
.cates ' therefore, in favor of the reduction of the present tariff, (which is more highly protective in its 
o-o,* -gvisions than any former one ever enacted in this country,) to the revenue standard. This, sir, is the 
jq. true constitutional, republican doctrine. It is the doctrine of the democratic party, as set forth in the 
g.jf. resolutions of the Baltimore Convention, and entertained by that party throughout the Union, with some 
Qf. few exceptions. 

From the present signs of the times, I infer that the principles promulgated by the delegates of the 
democratic party of the Union, in two conventions assembled at Baltimore — those of 1840 and 1844 — are 
not to be regarded by the^ pai’ty? in its present hour of triumph, as empty professions, mere rhetorical 
flourishes, promises made to the ear to be broken to the sense; but are to be carried out, in good faith, 
in practical legislation and administration. That such is the determination of the democratic party of the 
Union, and those who represent that party in the General Government, I infer from your course, and 
C that of the main body of the democratic press from Maine to Texas, and from the shores of the Atlantic 
to the farthest confines of the “great West.” . • 

This is as it should be. It will be acting in accordance with that character for truth, integrity, and 
justice, which has marked, and should ever mark, the course of the great party of the people. The 
people expect this course from those who now stand at the head of the democratic party. They have a 
right to expect that the democratic party will redeem its pledges to the country; and if it do not, they 
will turn from its support with disappointment and mortification, not to. say with disgust and loathing.. 
The adage that “honesty is the best policy,” though trite, has lost none of the influence of its pregnant 
meaning up^n the yet unadulterated popular mind of this coutitry. Individuals in their transactions and 
conduct in reference to others, are expected to live up to the golden rule involved in that homely precept;.- 
and he has seen but little of the world who does not know, that the most exalted stations in life only- 
en force, more imperatively, obedience to it. 

I am one, therefore, who expects that those who now represent the democratic party in the govern- 
I ment of the Union will honestly and faithfully redeem the pledges which that party has made to the 
ountry in the resolutions of the two last 'Baltimore conventions, and particularly of the last. One of 
p ^se pledges was a reduction of the present tariff to the revenue standard. Indeed, since the bank has become 
’ ^ “obsolete idea,” Texas annexed, and the whole scheme of federal measures repudiated by the people, 

Ac tari" and the independent treasury seem to be the only issues left, upon which the parties are at 
;'P?« .c divided. And, as there is no division among the members of the democratic party as to the lat- 
Hhe tariff seems now to be the only measure which constitutes the dividing line, or subject of conten- 
m, between democracy and federalism. , * 

But enough upon party pledges. My design is, in this communication, and others which are. tO' 
follow, to give you a few arguments and facts in favor of the doctrine which you have repeatedly laid 
down in the “Union” in relation to the tariff, viz: its-reduclion tothe revenue standard. 

On a subject which has been so thoroughly discussed by the ablest minds of the country, I can promise 
nothing new nor interesting. I have no other object in view than to endeavor to direct the attention of 
the country to a subject affecting every individual, beneficially or injuriously, and which will soon occupy 
the anjtious consideration of the representatives of the people in Congress. 

So much by the way of introduction; now to the point. Even in this enlightened age, comparatively 
very few understand and appreciate the precise meaning of the term tariff. Many of the good people of 
this country suppose that it is some undefinable thing, which, like the mythical deities of antiquity, con- 
fers (they cannot tell how) innumerable benefits upon the human race. They cannot imagine that tariff 
is but another word for tax; and that the higher, and consequently the more protective a tariff may be, the 
more heavy and burdensome is the tax which it imposes. Tajces, in any form, although necessary, are 
evils. McCulloch, in his late able work on Taxation, defines a tax to be “a portion, or the value of a 
portion, of the property or labor of individuals, taken from them by government, and placed at its disposuL'^'*' 

• The sentence quoted defines the meaning of a tax imposed in the form of a tariff, as well as one imposed; 
in any other form — by excise, direct taxation, or any other method. The only objection to the defini- 
tion of McCulloch is, that it does not with sufficient precision express the manifold enormities of a tarff 
tax; for, under that system of taxation, the government not only takes a portion, -or the value of a por- 
tion, of the. property or labor of individuals for its own use, but, by the very process by which it extracts 
from individuals a portion of their property or earnings for its own benefit, if extracts and transfers to tlw. 


4 


pockets of a set of privileged characters in the coimnunily — rich and overgrown manufacturers — a still greater 
proportion. How this is done, I shall endeavor to show in a subsequent communication. 

But I have digressed from my purpose, which was to give the original signification of the word tariff 
I find, on referring to a distinguished lexicographer, that the word tariff wo.s originally derived from the 
Arabic word d’oro/, which signifies ^'to knoiv.” Such was the meaning of the word from which the 
term taiiff was derived; and it then must have been innopent of .all evil designs and intents. But even 
that thing of Arab nativity, born in purity and innocence, was obliged to encounter all the perils 
and dangers which abound in this finite and fallible world ; and, as is .sometimes the fate of innocence 
and virtue, in fairer forms, it Has been corrupted, and has fallen fVom its high estate to one of vicej'^ick- 
edness, and crime. At' some stage of history — the precise time I have not been able to ascertain — it 
sutfered itself to be prostituted to a vile purpose, as the following extract from the fragments of Boling- 
broke most clearly proves. In speaking of the sale of indulgences,’ under which great frauds were alleged 
to have been practised by the Roman Catholic priests, he says: 

‘‘This traffic (for such it was) became so frequent, that, even in limes less ancient, the church of Rome found it neces . 
sarj to publish a TARIFF, or BOOK OF RATES, which 1 have seen in print, wherein the price is set over against every 
sin, lest purchasers should be imposed upon.” 

Thus, it seems, the term “ tariff” was first applied to designate the “ rates,” or duties which the Romaa 
Catholic priests levied upon sins. It cannot be supposed that, in that early age, they had arrived at a 
knowledge of all the curious devices by which duties maybe collected, discovered and practised in 
modern times, and by the high priests of protection. It is very likely the framers of the tariff on gins 
knew nothing of the fraudulent and cheating device of minimum duties, discovered in this latter age^an^ 
with which the existing tariff abounds. Nor could they very well, from the nature of the subject, have 
adopted in their system the honest and open-handed principle of ad valorem duties, such as the democratic 
party advocates. But the particular kind of duties levied under this tariff, devised to regulate the exac- 
tions of the priests, was, undoubtedly, specific. That is to say, the church permitted the priest to ab- 
solve, or let the offender off, for so many dollars, or pounds sterling, (no matter what the denomination,) 
for murder, so much for robbery, so much for theft, so much for adultery, &c., &c., &c. Such was the 
original meaning, and such the first authentic application of the word tariff, in its modern signification. 
The history of the matter is curious, interesting, and significant, and proves that the fallen angel has 
never been restored; that, with the additional cognomen of protective, under the guardianship of the 
high-priests of the manufacturing monopoly, it has ministered to wicked uses, as it did under the 
.(.are Of the ancient priests of the Roman Catholic church. , 

[ Since the publication of these essays in the “ Union,” I have learned that some of my Roman Oalholic readers, and 
particularly the clergy, have taken exceptions at the passage quoted from Bolingbroke. I regret very much that any res- 
pectable class of Christians should exhibit so mucli sensitiveness at what they could not fail to see, was a playful allusion, 
to an alleged historical fact, for no other purpose ihan to throw ridicule upon the idea of a taiiff. I would not affirm the 
statement of Bolingbroke to be a matter of fact. I do not care enough about the subject to feel any interest in its truth or 
falsehood. On the contrary, without troubling myself about the doctrines or the past history of the Roman Catholic 
church, I have always vindicated the right of the professors of that faith to equal protection, as a sect, under the just and 
liberal provisions of our Constitution, in relation* to religious toleration and freedom. I will venture to sav,^ that no intelli- 
gent and high minded Catholic, would think of taking umbrage at an allusion which he could not fail to see whs made 
from a very different motive than a design to injure life feelings of the professors of that faith. If Catholic Priests have a 
mind to render themselves contemptible, by preaching a crusade against it, (as I understand some of them have done,) 1. 
will not interpose to prevent them, by striking out the passage which they deem objectionable. It is father too small a 
business.] 

After giving the origin and application, both ancient and modern, of the word tariff, I designed, in thi^ 
communication, to define the difference between a tariff tax and a direct tax ; but I have extended it to 4 
, length so much greater than I expected when I commenced, that I feel bound to respect the patience eff 
vmyTeaders, and will defer until my next this branch of the subject. BUNDELCUND^ 


No. 2. — The meaning of the werrd tariff'^ still further explained — Jl tax — Difference bcticeen a tariff .ax{ 
and a direct tax — Position, views, and purpose of the democratic and federal parties in relation to the tariff. 

By way of preface to this article, it is proper for me to state, that I am not writing for the purpose of 
enlightening learned and experienced statesmen and legislators upon the subject of the tariff, or of taxa- 
tion in any form. As it is their busim^ss to become acquainted with matters of such high import to the 
tcommon weal, in order to act upon them understandingly, I take it for granted that they are well ac- 
quainted with them. To that class of readers, therefore, I do not particularly' address my.self; but, if it 
be possible for me to succeed in the effort, I do desire to explaimthis somewhat intricate and complicated 
subject, (rendered still more intricate and complicated by the specious draperies of falsehood and humbug 
which the advocates of the protective system have thrown around it,) to that class of our fellow-citizens — 
the farmers, mechanics, and workingmen of this republic — who have not the opportunity nor the means 
to study this subject, which those have who possess the means and the time to make themselves acquaint- 
ed with it. Hence my desire to define the meaning of terms which may be very well understood by the 
.more enlightened and experienced reader. 

le my first communication, I proved that the modern signification of the word tariff was a hook of rates. 
It means no more nor less than a list of taxes, duties, or tolls. Persons who have travelled in the Northera 
'States of this Union, must frequently have observed on the gates of bridges and turnpike roads, a wide 
board with the rates of toll inscribed upon it, and headed '■‘■tariff of tolls.” This clearly explains the 
-meaning of the term. A list of tire tolls levied on boats and merchandise passing through the Erie canal 
■of New York, would be no more nor less than a tariff of tolls. In the legislation of this and other 
-countries, the list of rates or duties imposed upon merchandise imported from one country into another 
is known by the same term — a tariff. It means no more than a list of taxes imposed by the Government 


5 

on articles imported from one country into another, for the use and consumption of the people of the 
latter country. 

Having explained tho tme and precise meaning of the word tariff, according to its modern acceptation, 
I will now attempt to sJiow the difference between a tariff tax and a direct tax; those being the two modes 
of taxation generally resorted to by -the general and State governments, for the purpose of raising the 
necessary means for their support. ^ 

A direct tax is a tax levied upon the property of the individuals composing the community which resorts 
to it. By this mode of taxation, each person is taxed (as near as it is possible in practice to approximate 
to exact justice) in proportion to the property he possesses. It is levied upon lands, houses, money, 
.stock in trade, &c,, &c. And he who possesses the largest amount of property, joays most for the sup- 
port of the government, by who.se power his life, liberty, and property are protected. He has a greater 
stake in the stability and permanence of the government, and therefore he should ]my more for its pro- 
tection. He also has more. means to bear the burdens which it imposes. This mode of taxation is also 
honest and above-board in its exactions. Every man, under a system of direct taxation, knows what he 
has to pay, and for what he pays. It is collected by the professed tax-gatherer, or collector. That officer 
comes with his book of rates, or tax-bill, in his hand. He shows it to the persons of whom the tax is 
to be collected. And they are dius enabled to learn from it the amount of tax they are obliged to pay, 
and for what purpose. They thus learn precisely what government costs them, and whether it imposes 
its cojitributions on all with a just and impartial hand. This, in short, is direct taxation. It is a system 
of taxation, which, so far as the General Government is concerned, has been hunted down by the advo- 
cates of a protective tariff — as it were, by hue-and-cry. And yet, direct taxation is the mode btj which the 
government of every State in the Uniemis supported. It is the mode by which all the State, county, and 
town taxes in New England are levied and collected; and yet the very men who. resort to it at home to 
sustain their political communities, denounce and cry it down when it is proposed as the proper system 
of taxation to be adopted by the General Government. And it must be confessed, that they have per- 
suaded a respectable portion of the people of this country to believe that it is some horrible monster — 
some terrible mad-dog, to be avoided for their lives, and knocked in the head, if possible, when they are, 
in fact, every day, and every hour, the victims of direct taxation at home. 

I will now endeavor to show thfe manner in which the tariff syntem of taxation operates upon individ- 
uals and the community. In the first place, it is a tax upon the consumption of the country. By means 
of a tariff, we are taxed for nearly everything we eat, drink, and wear. And as one man, having the 
means to purchase, pays as much of this tax as another — the man who supports himself by his daily 
labor pays as much as the rich, becaiase he consumes as much as the rich man. A tariff-tax, therefore, 
is, in substance and effect, a capitation-tax, or tax upon persons, and not upon property — the man who 
possesses a million of dollars pays no more than he who possesses but one thousand. It is, therefore, 
an unjust system of taxation, inasmuch as it exacts as much from the poor man as it does from the rich, 
because the former consumes as great an amount of dutiable articles as the latter. 

It is also a deceptive and dishonest mode of taxation. It does not go in broad daylight, and with open 
hand, to those on whom it levies its exactions, and apprise them of the amount of the tax which it obliges 
them to pay, and for w'hat they have to pay it. On the contrary, as if conscious that its purpose was 
furtive, and its intent a wicked one, it pretends not to tax them at all, but, in point of fact, cheats the tax 
out of those who have to pay it, under the disguise and concealment of price. It seizes hold of ^very 
pound of sugar, every y^rd of cloth, every trace-chain used by the farmer — nay, every pin used by the 
women, every bauble bought to amuse children — the moment it is entered at the custom-house ; and 
there it levies its duty, which passes into the cost paid by the merchant, who finally retails it to the cus- 
tomer, with the duty and his profits added to the original cost; and thus, under the shape and disguise of 
price, this tariff tax is collected. 

Instead of employing honest tax-gatherers to do its business, who are not ashamed of their profession, 
and whom the people respect, it makes the merchant the unconscious instrument of its exactions ; and he is 
forced, willing or not, to a.ct as the tax-gatherer of the Government. Every man and boy standing be- 
hind the counter, and measuring off calico by the yard, or dealing out sugar by the pound, is a collector 
of taxes for the Government. And thus are the people cheated ojut of the tax they are obliged to pay 
for the support of the Government, under the cunning device of a tariff tax, which does not let them know 
how much they pay, nor for what they pay it. Nor is it gallant and generous in its exactions. Instead 
of confining them to the male and the adult members of the community, it commits its depredations alike 
upon women and children, who purchase a single article imported from a foreign country, or one which 
it protects by taxing the foreign article coming in competition with it. Nor is it satisfied with the single 
mode of cheating the p(^ile out of the Uixes which it levies upon them, as above described ; but it resorts 
to what it denominates Wimaittui and specific duties — which are but other terms for legislative mendacity 
and fraud, and which I shall particularly expose in a future communication. In relation to this matter 
I write in strong and emphatic language, because I wish to be understood. 

Having pointed out the distinction between a tariff tax and a direct tax, I will pass on to the last topic 
which I propose to discuss in this communication, viz ; the position, views, and purposes of the demo- 
cratic and federal pai’ties in relation to the tariff. By the term federal, I mean the party opposed to the 
democracy, by whatever name or device it may be known. I am aware that that party now call them- 
selves whigs. I have known them, in my day, by a variety of other names; and it is not the first time 
that I have known persons with bad principles, and worse characters, to change their names in the hope 
of eluding detection. It is the common refuge of rogues ; and if the federal party, under their modern 
whig alias, are pleased with it, why, I shall not quarrel with them for their trieky fancies. Without some 
such disguise to rescue them from the odium which would attach to them on account of their political 
misconduct, their leaders would hardly be able to keep enough of the rank and file with them to be ablo 
at any time to make a respectable fight with the democracy. But 1 am digressing. 


6 


I "have attempted to point out the ’difference between a tariff tax and a direct tax, and to show that the 
former was a deceptive and dishonest, and the latter an undisguised, honest, and just system of taxation. 
.1 have not done this because I would advocate a change in the present mode of collecting the revenues of 
the General Government, but to present more forcibly and emphatically the, inequality , injustice, and op- 
pression of the tariff system, when pushed beyond the limits of the revenue standard into the region of 
protection. In the present state of the public mind on that subject, I would not change the mode of rais- 
ing the revenues of the General Government, by duties on foreign imports, if I could. All great changes 
in legislation must be preceded by corresponding changes in public opinion. A change in our revenue 
system must be the consequent of a corresponding change in public opinion. Therefore I would not, 
until public opinion changes, alter the system under which the revenues of the Government are raised, 
fioth of the great parties into which the people of this country are divided, I believe agree upon this point, 
viz : That the revenues required to siostain the General Government are to be raised by a tanff, or duties imposed 
cn foreign imports. On this point the leaders, as well as the masses of the two great parties, agree. Mr. 
Calhoun, regarded as the most ultra of the leaders of the party opposed to a higli tariff, concurs in the 
general doctrine. He, in fact, repudiates the absolute doctrine of free trade ascribed to him by the friends 
ef the opposite policy; and contends that the revenues of this Government should be raised in no other 
way except by duties upon foreign imports. Therefore, this proposition may be safely laid down — that 
both the democratic and federal parties are in favor of raising the revenues of the General Government by a 
tariff of dxUies on foreign imports. 

The only point of di.spute is, as to what this tariff shall be, and as to the method of imposing the du- 
ties to be levied under it. The democratic party contends that the Government has no sight to raise 
more revenue under the form of a tariff than its wants, defined by an economical expenditure, require. 
It contends that the Goyernment has no authority to tax the people for any purpose, except to raise re- 
venue. Hence the democratic party is in favor of a revenue tariff. 

The federal or whig party contend for a different doctrine. They contend that the Government may 
uot only impose duties with a view to raise a revenue for its own use, but it may impose them for the 
purpose of protecting certain branches of industry — in other words, taxing the great mass of the people 
for the benefit of a small portion, who, in general, stand in need of no aid from any source ; and they 
contend that, to effect this object, the duty may be so high as to prevdnt the importation of the foreign 
article — thus defeatmg revenue. And this they call a protective tarift’. Here, then, is the point of differ- 
ence between the two parties. The democratic party are in favor of a tarifi’ of duties, imposed only with a 
view to raise a revenue for the necessary wants of the Government; while the whig party are in favor of a 
tariff of duties, imposed not only for the purpose of raising the necessary revenue, but to protect and 
foster certain branches of manufacture, by increasing the duties in some cases to absolute prohibition — 
’d’lus defeating all revenue. 

The principles and distinctive differences of a tariff for revenue, and one for protection, will be consid- 
ered in my next communication. BUNDELCUND. 


Ho. 3. — The principles and distinctive differences between a tarnff for revenue and one for protection considered 

In my last, in order to enforce more clearly the injustice and inequality of the system of raising a reve- 
nue for the use of the Govermiient, by the imposition of customs or duties upon foreign imports — par- 
ticularly when that system was pushed beyond the real object of raising revenue, and became “protect- 
* iye”'’ffi its features — I attempted to explain the difference between a tariff tax and a direct tax ; showing 
tliat the first was a tax upon the consumption of the country, and therefore operated as a tax upon pexsons 
— all, whether rich or poor, paying nearly.equal portions of that tax ; and that the latter was a tax upon 
jnopex'ty, of which each person paid in proportion to the amount of property he possessed. ' 

I also stated the proposition that, in the present condition of the country, and in the present state of 
public sentiment on the subject, both of the great parties into which the people of this country are divided, 
'were in favor of raising the revenues required by the General Government, by a tariff of imposts upon 
foreign importations; and, at the same time, I endeavored to show that there were two tariff theories or 
.systems, one of which was the revenue tariff sxjstem., advocated by the democratic party; the other, the 
jyroteclive tariff system, advocated by tlief federal or whig party. 

In tliis communication I shall endeavor to point out the principles and the distinctive differences of 
these two antagonist theories or systems. But, in passing, I will seize the occasion to repudiate one term, 
applied by federal editors and orators to the democratic party, (and sometimes acquiesced in by the lat- 
ter;) by the use of which term much injury has been done to the democracy — I mean the term '■'■free 
Itrade.'^ The democratic party, because they desire a reduction of the tariff' to tlm revenue standard, are 
:falsely and perseveringly denominated " the free-trade ” party. To be candid, I (Ulieve some individuals 
<?f the democratic party not only acquiesce in the correctness of the term, as applied to the advocates of a 
revenue tariff, but themselves denominate the democratic the free-trade party. This term misrepresents 
itheir principles. No party in this country advocates the absolute doctrines of free-trade — that is, an ab- 
olition of all duties, and a re.sort to direct taxation. Certainly the democratic party do not, nor do any 
of its distinguished leaders, including Mr. Calhoun himself, one of the first and ablest champions of a 
moderate tariff. They propose to a})proximate to the principles of free-trade only so far as they can, by 
an equal and just imposition of duties, to an extent sufficient to raise revenue for the necessary wants of 
the Government, administered with a strict regard to economy. The democratic party, therefore, is not 
the free-trade party, but it is truly the REVENUE TARIFF PARTY. 

Starting upon the conceded {)roposition that both parties are in favor of a tariff of some kind, I will 
TTiow proceed to show the principles and distinctive differences between a revenue and a protective tariff. 
Jn the present condition of our country, the General Government ought not to exact of the people, for its 
«ordinary expenditures, more than |20,000,000 at the outside. It should not exact so much. Extraordi- 


nary circumstances — such, for instance, as have grown out of the annexation of Texas — may increase it;? 
expenditures, and compel it to exact more. But, whatever the amount may be, it must (with the excep- 
tion of the revenue accruing from the sales of the public land) be raised by duties upon foreign importa- 
tions — in other words, by a tariff. 

How shall these duties be levied? The democratic party contends that they should be levied solely with 
a view to revenue, leaving protection as an accidental consequence of a revenue duty. The Constitution permits 
duties to be levied for no other purpose. It does not say that Congress shall have power “to lay and 
collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and 
general welfare of the United States,” and to p'otect the manufacturers. They are to be laid and collected 
only for the benefit of the corporate body of the United States, represented by their Government. 

Now, it has been found, in the experience of nations, that if a duty be imposed upon an article too high 
in proportion to its value, it will have a two-fold effect, viz : first, to check the importation of the article; 
and, secondly, to defeat, or greatly to diminish the amount of revenue to be derived from it, if the duty were 
lower. It is evident, therefore, that Avhen the rate of duty is so high as to prohibit its introduction into 
the country, or greatly to diminish it, it defeats the revenue which, with a more moderate duty, would 
be derived from it. It therefore ceases to be a revenue duty, and becomes prohibitive — in other wordsj 
“p'otedire.” 

It has also been found, in the experience of nations, that there is a limit of duty which ivill neither prevent 
the importation of the commodity on which it is imposed, nor diminish the revenue to be derived from its importa- 
tion. This limit may be higher, or lower, according to the nature of the commodity on which it is im- 
posed. If the commodity be of small bulk and great value, it will not bear so high a rate of duty as 
commodities of greater bulk and lesser value ; particularly if the latter have become a real or fancied ne- 
cessary of life. And the reason is obvious: if too high a duty is imposed upon the commodity of small 
bulk and great value, instead of being entered at the custom-house, -it will be smuggled, and thus the 
Government will derive very little or no revenue from it. I might instance diamonds, as a commodity 
from which, on account of their small bulk and great value, little or no revenue would be derived, if too 
high a duty were imposed upon them. 

On the contrary, iron, sugar, and salt, three of the prime necessaries of life, (their great bulk in propor- 
tion to their value rendering it almost an impossibility to smuggle them,) will bear comparatively a much 
higher duty. But a duty may be imposed upon those articles so high as to even prohibit their importa- 
tion. The duty, notwithstanding the idle and absurd assertions of certain shabby theorists of the “pro- 
tective” school, increases the price; and, as all persons consume as much of the necessaries of life as 
their wants require, and their means will permit them to buy, the higher the price, (if it be very sensibly 
increased,) the less will be the quantity consumed, and, of course, the less will be the quantity imported. 
The quantity imported maybe sensibly diminished, before the revenue derived from it decreases in 
amount. But the moment the duty rises so high as to check the importation of the commodity, it be- 
comes pro tanto prohibitive, and consequently ^fmotective."” 

The purpose of the democratic party is not to lay on any commodity a duty so high as to defeat its 
purpose of raising the highest amount of revenue from it which can be raised, without sensibly diminish- 
ing its introduction into the country ; and this is a revenue duty. 

On arr article of common use, (not to call it a necessary,) such as^ sugar or coffee, it would not impose 
a duty so high as sensibly to diminish its importation, and thus deprive the poorer classes of the people 
of the comfort of enjoying them — thus making those articles luxuries, to be enjoyed only by the rich, 
even if it would increase the amount of revenue to be derived from them. A revenue duty, therefore, 
should be limited by two principles: first, it should not be so high as to defeat the object of raising revenue; 
secondly, it should not be so high as sensibly to diminish the importation of the commodities on which it is inrt- 
posed. A departure from these two principles makes the duty prohibitive and protective. 

On articles not of necessity, but of luxury — such as wines, distilled spirits, &c. — the duty may go up 
to its highest limit, short of defeating the amount of revenue to be derived from it. In relation to this 
subject, the moral question is the same, whether foreign spirits are introduced, or, by their exclusion, 
domestic manufacturers are encouraged to make spirits. Foreign and domestic spirits are equally the 
enemies of the temperance reformer. 

Such (as above explained) are the principles on which a. revenue tariff sliould be constructed. They 
will admit of a duty on most commodities as high as 20 per cent.: on some, as high as 30 per cent., and 
even higher, may be imposed. But an average duly of 20 per cent, on the annual importation of one 
hundred millions, will raise an ample revenue for the use of the Government. By average, I do not 
mean a horizontal duty. The idea of a horizontal tariff — a tariff imposing the same rate of duty on all 
articles — is entertained by very few, if any (at this period,) of the democratic party. 

The theory of a protective tanff admits the same general principle of raising a revenue by imports, or 
duties on foreign importations, which is recognised by a revenue tariff. But, in laying these duties, its 
next great aim is to protect the manufacturers of articles coming in competition with certain foreign com- 
modities imported into the country. Nay, judging from many of the provisions of the existing tarifi', it 
may with truth be asserted, that its first object is to benefit, or “protect,” (to speak technically,) a cer- 
tain class of citizens engaged in manufactures, at the expense of all other classes. And, in order to do 
this, it levies its duties not solely with a view to raise revenue, but, to some extent, to prohibit the intro- 
duction into the country of the commodity on which the duty is imposed. In some instances, the duties 
imposed by the existing tariff amount to a total prohibition. I refer to the coarse kinds of cotton cloth, 
of which the manufacturers of this country now produce an ample supply. By this prohibitive duty, 
imposed through the aid of the fraudulent and cheating device of the minimum principle, the manufacturer 
is enabled to fix his own price upon these coarse fabrics, actually charging his own countrymen moro 
for them than he sells them for in foreign markets. Thus, in respect to this article, all revenue is de- 
feated. A great portion of the duties imposed by the present tariff are more or less prohibitive. 


8 


With the same view of benefitting or “protecting” the manufacturer, the present tariff admits, duty^ 
free, a large class of articles consumed by the manufacturers. It seems to have been framed more with 
such a vievv, than with the view of raising revenue. It may justly be called a carijf to protect the manu- 
fmturers, and incidentally to raise a revenue for the support of the Government. It is the favorite bant 
ling of the whigs — the only surviving child of the hard-cider Congress; and therefore it is cherished with 
all that doating fondness which parents display who have been favored with but one darling “responsi- 
bility.” They will love and admire the little “cherub,” however deformed in body, stupid in mind, or 
mischievous in conduct it may be, and however much other people may hate and detest it. 

All duties tend, in some degree, to raise the price of the commodity on which they are levied, and also 
tlie domestic article coming in competition with it. Therefore the domestic article would be, to some 
extent, “protected” by a mere revenue duty. That protection would be a necessary consequence, and 
could not be prevented. Revenue would be the purpose of a revenue tariff, and protection its consequence 
or “incident.” Therefore, in one sense, all tariffs of duties are more or less “protective.” 

I have now explained the principles which mark and distinguish a tariff for revenue from one for pro- 
tection. In my next I shall take up the existing tariff, and show, in that and subsequent communica- 
tions, the mendacious, cheating, and iniquitous devices and contrivances incorporated into it by the ad- 
vocates of protection, which have become notorious and odious under the name of minimum and specific 
duties, and with which it everywhere abounds. BUNDELCUND. 


IsTo. 4. — The present tariff considered. — It is a protective tariff in all its features. — Duties advaloi'ein, minimum, 

and specific. — Those terms explained. — Injustice and oppression practised under the mininmm and. specific 

duties. — Illustrations by facts. 

In my last communication I attempted to explain the principles which mark and distinguish a tariff 
for revenue from one for protection, defining what I deemed a revenue and what a protective tariff. 

In this number I propose to consider the fundamental principles and the peculiar characteristics of the 
existing tariff, which is the only surviving monument of the inglorious and disastrous reign of whiggery 
in 1842 — except a J^ational Debt of ^17,00^0,000. 

In the first place, it is, in all its leading features, a protective tariff. Deducing a conclusion from its 
most important provisions, it was enacted mainly for the express purpose of benefitting and enriching 
the manufacturing capitalists of the country at the expense of all other classes of our citizens. It is a 
MANUFACTURER’S TARIFF — devised by the manufacturers, voted for in Congress by manufac- 
turers, and designed to benefit manufacturing capital and other capital at the expense of consumption and 
labor. It discriminates in favor of the manufacturer, against the producer of the raw material, who is 
the farmer. It also discriminates in favor of the rich consumer against the poor consumer. Its whole 
tendency is to buildup and fortify capital in this country; thus establishing the basest, most sordid, 
most grovelling of all aristocracies — a moneyed aristocracy — at the expense of the impoverishment and 
degradation of the masses of the people. This is its character, and this is its tendency, as a careful and 
thorough analysis of all its provisions will most clearly prove. It is my purpose, now, to go into this 
analysis, and to demonstrate the propositions I have laid down. 

Admitting, duty free, articles imported for the benefit of the United States, philosophical apparatus for 
schools and colleges, certain articles used by the manufacturers in their business, tea and coffee, (impro- 
perly exempted from duty, in consequence of the injudicious appeals, perhaps, of partisans of both par- 
ties to the prejudices of the people,) gold and silver, and a few minor articles, it imposes on all other 
articles rates of duty reduced to ad valorem, ranging from about 2 per cent, to over 300 per cent., as ap- 
pears from actual importations since its passage. 

The duties which it imposes are of three descriptions, viz : ad valorem, minimum, and specific. In. 
order to enable those not conversant with the precise meaning of these terms, it is necessary that I should 
go into a brief explanation of them, illustrating, by the way, the justice of the first, and the injustice 
and enormity of the two last. 

1. The ad valorem duty. The term “ad valorem” is a Latin term, which means in proportion to the 
value. Thus, when a commodity is charged with a duty of 30 per cent, ad valorem, the importer has to 
pay at the custom-house f30 for every hundred of its value. If the duty is 20 per cent., he pays :^20 for 
every $100; and, if 40 per cent., $40 for every $100 in value of the article imported. Thus it is evident 
that this description of duty is a just and an honest duty. If the articles are of a cheap description, they 
are of less value, and, of course, pay less duty. If they are valuable and costly, they pay a higher duty 
in proportion. Each person who purchases the articles imported, whether cheap or dear, pays a duty 
only in proportion to its value. To illustrate more clearly: Suppose that silks were charged with a duty 
of 30 per cent, ad valorem, and that two pieces were imported — one valued at 50 cents per yard, the other 
at $1. Under this description of duty, the person who purchased a yard of the^cheap silk would have 
to pay only 15 cents duty; while the person who bought the dear silk would have to pay 30 cents — just 
double the amount — because the value is double; but both articles paying only a duty of 30 per cent, ad 
valorem. Thus an ad valorem duty, whatever may be the rate, falls equally and impartially upon all con- 
sumers — the high and the low, the rich and the poor. It is the only kind of duty which an honest, republican 
people should ever submit to or tolerate. 

2. The minimum duty. This, in the language of the framers of the tariff of 1842, is also called an ad 
■“alorem duty ; but, while pretending to that character, iHs a mere mendacious, fraudulent, and cheating 
iegislative device to collect a duly, in some instances four or five times higher than it professes to collect. It is 
also a Latin word, which means the smallest quantity possible. In the present tariff it applies only to cot- 
ton fabrics and yarns. There are three minimums which apply to fabrics, all or a part of which are 
cotton, viz: the 20-cents, 30-cents, and 35-cents minimums; and two which apply to cotton yarns, viz: 
the 60-cents and 75-cehts minimums. 


The following is the mode in which these minimum duties are levied. To explain the method, I wil 
take, tor instance, coarse cotton shirtings which cost 3 cents per yard in England. The present tariff 
professes to levy on all cotton manufactures, coarse as well as fine, imported into this country, only a 
duty of 30 per cent, ad valorem — that is, $30 for every $100 of value imported. If, however, that were 
tlie actual duty levied on manufixctures of cotton, the cloth above mentioned, costing in England 3 cents 
a yard, would pay a duty of but 9 mills. But, when the importer enters the cloth at the custom-house, 
and ofifers to pay the duty of 9 mills per yard, which would be 30 per .cent, ad valorem, the collector 
tells him he must pay 6 cents, instead of 9 mills. The importer asks him why he demands 6 cents per 
yard duty, when the law says it shall be taxed only 30 per cent, ad valorem, which is 9 mills The 
•collector replies: “True, the law says you shall pay only 30 per cent, on your cloth; but it also says — 
for the purpose of protecting Abbott Lawrence, who is worth a million of dollars; Nathan Appleton, 
worth another million; Samuel \pplelon, worth another million; and numerous others, worth hundreds 
of thousands each, manufacturers of cotton — that all cloth costing less than 20 cents a square yard, shall 
be assumed to have cost 20 cents; and on that 20 cents the duty must be paid, which is (> cents. Now, you 
paid, it is true, but 3 cents in England for your cloth; but the tariff says, for the purpose of protecting 
the aforesaid manufacturers, that you paid 20 cents, which is the minimum, or least possible price the 
tarift’ supposes, you have paid; and, therefore, 30 per cent, on 20 cents is 6 cents; and, instead of 9 mills, 
you must pay 6 cents duty.” The importer replies: “Then, sir, while the tariff pretends to tax me only 
30 per cent., by stating a falsehood in assuming that tny cloth cost 20 cents a square yard, instead of 3 
cents — it actually, under this wicked device of a minimum duty, taxes me 200 per cent!!” He then con- 
soles himself with the reflection, that, in the end, he shall not pay that enormous duty ; but he will add it 
to the cost of the cloth, and will make the poor nuin who buys the cloth pay it. Thus, through this mendacious, 
fraudulent, and cheating invention of minimums, is the consumer defrauded of a duty equal to 200 per 
cent., while the tariff pretends to exact only 30 per cent, of him. This illustration explains the principle 
of a minimum duty. The effect of this enormous duty is to exclude the coarse cotton cloths from our 
market, and to leave to the American manufacturer of the article a complete monopoly of their sale, 

As I have before remarked, there are three minimums applicable to fabrics of which cotton is a com- 
ponent part, and two applicable to cotton yarns. They are, in substance, as follows: 

“On all manufactures of cotton, or of which cotton is a component part, not dyed, colored, printed, or 
^stained, not exceeding in value 20 cents per square yard, shall be valued at 20 cents per square yard;” and 
on that assumed value a duty of 30 per cent, is imposed, which amounts to 6 cents on every square yard. 

“On all fabrics of the same description, if dyed, colored, printed, or stained, in whole or in part, not 
exceeding iiwalue 30 cents, shall be valued at 30 cents the square yard;” and on that assumed value a 
duty of 30 per cent, is imposed, which amounts to 9 cents on every square yard. 

“On velvets, cords, moleskins, fustians, buffalo cloths, of which cotton is a component part, or goods 
manufactured by napping, or raising, cutting or shearing, ?iof exceeding in value 35 cents per square yard, 
shall be valued at 35 cents-ff' and on that assumed value a duty of 30 per cent, is imposed, which amounts 
to 10 cents 5 mills per square yard. 

Cotton twist, yarn, and thread, unbleached and uncolored, costing less than 60 cents per pound, shall be 
valued at 60 cents per pound; and on that assumed value a duty of 30 per cent. (18 cents per pound) is 
imposed. 

On the same articles, bleached or colored, costing less than 75 cents and over 60 cents per pound, shall 
he valued at 75 cents per pound; and on that assumed value a duly of 30 per cent. (22 cents 5 mills per 
pound) is imposed. • 

The duties actually paid on importations under the minimums in the present tariff, reduced to real ad 
valorem duties, range from 30 to 162 per cent., as appears by the report of the Committee of Ways and 
Aleans of the House of Representatives, during the 1st session of the 26th Congress, being document 306. 

But, in all arguments, I prefer the logic of facts and figures to mere theories or assertion.s; and in this 
instance I have them before me. I have before me samples of seven different fabrics, in whole or in part 
manufactured of cotton, all coming into the country subject to the minimum duties above specified, and 
which were purchased in England by an eminent importer of Boston. I shall give the name of the 
article, cost, and duties, in his own words. They are as follows: 

“No. 1 is composed of cotton and worsted, is called Orleans cloth, is one yard wide, cost in England 
14 cents per yard, and pays 9 cents the yard duty, or 65 per cent. 

“No. 2 is also composed of cotton and worsted, is called mousseline de laine, cost in England 8^ cents 
per yard, is 23 inches wide, pays 5f cents duty, or 66 per cent. 

“No. 3 is the same material, used for linings, called Verona serge, cost in England 11 cents per yard, 
is 23 inches wide, and pays 5’ cents duty, or 53 per cent. 

“No. 4 is composed of cotton, is called ‘gingham,’ is ^ of a yard wide, costs in England 11 cents per 
yard, pays a duty of 78 cents, or 71| per cent. 

“No. 5 is composed of cotton and worsted, cost in England 12 cents per yard, measures 1 yard wide, 
pays 9 cents per yard duty, or 75 per cent. This description of goods is called ‘Parisians.” 

“No. 6. This article is composed entirely of cotton, is called ‘sarsnet cambric,’ and is used for lining 
women’s dresses; it costs in England 5 cents 6 mills per yard, measures 92-100 of a yard in width, pays 
8 cents 3 mills per yard duty, or^ 148 per cent.!! This (the merchant adds) amounts to nearly a prohibi- 
tion; still a few are imported, and pay this abominable duty for the benefit of the manufacturer. 

“No. 7 is ‘white cambric,’ all ’cotton, costs 7 cents a yard in England, measures 90-100 of a yard ia 
width, and pays 5 cents 4 mills per yard duty, or 78 per cent.” 

All these fabrics, except the last, come under the second or 30-cents minimum. The last one comes 
sunder the first or 20-cents minimum, which is totally prohibitive as to the coarse cotton cloths. Further, 


5t will be seen that all the articles above described are worn and used almost entirely by the poor and 
middling classes of the community. Well may the importer, in the fervor of his indignation, denounce 
such taxation upon the poor and middling classes as abominable!’'^ But it is a tariff containing such 
abominable impositions and oppressions upon the poor and unsuspecting consumer, that the sordid and 
purse-proud manufacturing capitalist calls upon the country to sustain! It is the poor who wear “ging- 
hams,” cheap “mousseline delaines,” “Parisians,” and “Orleans cloths,” made of cotton and worsted, 
and “sarsnet cambrics” for cloak linings, which are loaded down with these enormous duties, I’anging 
from 53 to 148 per cent, ad valorem. And it is the courteous, polite, high-minded, magnanimous man- 
ufacturer, who desires, through the aid of a mendacious, fraudulent, cheating device in the tariff laws of 
his country, to exact these enormous duties (M'hich serve the double purpose of giving a revenue to- 
Government and a bounty to himself) from poor men and women, while it pretends only to tax them 3(1 
per cent. Out upon such legislative fraud, such shameful knavery! What effect can such base practices- 
nave upon the moral characters of those who are guilty of them.' Can the representatives of the people 
hesitate to blot such infamous provisions from the revenue system of a republican nation, the fundamen- 
tal principle of whose institutions rmd laws is justice and equality? I cannot doubt it. It remains to be 
seen whether a democratic Congress will longer tolerate a tariff system containing such iniquitous pro- 
visions. 

I designed to explain the device of specific duties in this communication, but it has already transcended! 
the limits I had assigned to it.' In my next I sha^l take that subject up, and, in connexion with it, show 
that the present tariff discriminates in favor of the manufacturer against the farmer or producer of the 
raw material, and in favor of the rich against the poor; thus benefitting capital alone, and tending to 
build up in this country that most mercenary, most selfish, and basest of all aristocracies — a moneyed- 
.ARISTOCRACY. ' BUNDELCUND. 


dSTo. 5 . — The present tarnff further considered — specific duties explained — it discriminates in favor of the manu- 
facturer against the producer of the raw material ; also, in favor of the rich against the middling classes and 

poor. — It taxes labor and exempts capital, and thus tends to bxiild up an aristocracy based upon mousy and 

chartered privileges. 

In my last communication, my purpose mainly w'as to explain the three different descriptions of du- 
ties, or modes of laying duties, under the existing tariff, viz : the ad a alorem, minimum, and specific.. 
The first I showed to be a just and impartial mode of laying duties under a tariff — the only mode which, 
should be sanctioned, or submitted to, by an honest republican people. 

The second t proved to be a mendacious, fraudulent, cheating device, resorted to by the friends of pro- 
tection to enable them to impose upon the consumer a duty four or five times as great as the tariff pre- 
tends to impose upon them. 

It remains now to consider the nature of specific duties, which is another fraudulent legislative device,, 
invented for the same purpose of compelling the consumer to pay an enormous duty, for the double pur- 
pose of raising revenue for the Government, and securing a bounty to the manufacturer; which the con- 
sumer would never consent to pay one moment, if he understood the nature of the duty, and the extent 
to which he was taxed by it. 

The specific duty also operates to exempt the rich from taxation, and to increase the burden of taxa- 
tion upon the poor and middling classes. Its nature, and its mode of operation, I shall now proceed to» 
explain. 

A specific duty is a certain, precise, and invariable sum imposed upon all articles of the same kind, per- 
pound, yard, bushel, or ton, without reference to their quaiity, cost, or value. Its meaning will be best undei:^- 
stood from its application. 

Eor instance : brown sugar pays a specific duty of tw'o and a half cents per pound ; that duty is im- 
posed on all kinds of brown sugar, Avhatever may be their cost in foreign markets, or whatever their 
quality. The best brown Havana .sugar pays no more than the poorest Porto Rico. 

Loaf sugar pays a specific duty of six cents per pound, whatever may be its cost in a foreign country,, 
or whatever may be its quality. 

Silk fabrics, used for dresses, pay a specific duty of $2 50 per pound, whether they are coarse or fine, 
cheap or cosily. A silk dress Aveighing one pound, and costing not more than ^10, pays just as much, 
duty to the Government as a pound of rich silk lace, which costs ^50. 

Molasses pays a duty of four and a half mills per pound — which, assuming that a gallon w'eighs ten- 
pounds, is four and a half cents per gallon — whatever may have been its cost in a foreign market, or 
whatever its quality. 

A specific duty, as I have before remarked, is applied to a certain quantity of an article, whatever may 
be its quality, cost, or value. Therefore, on some articles, it is very heavy in proportion to their quality 
and A’alue ; while, on -others, it is very light. But this subject is better illustrated by reference to facts. 

The following table exhibits the names of several articles imported under the present tariff, the specific 
duties imposed upon them, the duty reduced to an average ad valorem duty on the importations of the- 
last three quarters of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1843, as calculated at the Treasury Department, and 
ihe ad valorem duty on the same articles, as calculated from actual importations : 


11 

TABLE. 


ARTICLES. 


‘Carpets — * 
■V\ilton,per sqr.yd. 
Saxony, do 
Treble ingrain pr. 

square yd. 
Common ingrain pr. 

square yard, 
Flannels, except 
cotton, per sqr. 
yard, 

Bockings and bai- 
zes per sqr. yard. 
Silks. 

Manufactures not 
enumerated, pr.^ 
pound , 

•Sewing silk, per 
pound, 

■Pongee and plain 
white, pr. pound, 
Hemp — 

Unmanufactured, 
per ton. 

Used for cordage, 
per ton , 

Tarred cables and * 
cordage, pr. lb. 
Unlarred cordage, 
per pound. 

Tarn, per pound, 
Cotton-bagging, per 
square yard. 
Gunny-cloth, per 
square yard, 

Iron 

In bars or bolts, 
wholly or in part 
manufactured by 
rolling, per ton, 
Hailroad iron, per 
ton. 

Pig iron, per ton, 
Hollow &. castings 
per pound, 

Sad irons, per lb. 
Hatter’s and tailor’s 
irons, per pound, 
Cast iron bolts, per 
pound, 

Iron and steel wire, 
notexceedingNo- 
14, per lb. 

Over 14, and not 
over No. 25, per 
pound, 

Over No. 25 per lb. 


1 

3 


^ > 

> 

cc 

t 

« 

1 t 1 — 

rt 3 2 


• 

3 


1 « < r 

3 > ?3 

]L< M 

1 If—* 

■u X 2 

V 

S 


r a 

a> 

o 

a 

3 « « ^ S 


*3 

0 


E £ 

«-3 « 2 <» 
S X ^ s 

o « 

a;- M 


o 

H) — 

c 

o 


o 2 2 .2 

« 2 =« o- 

ARTICLES. 

'Z . 

a' tr; 

c. a> 


'O _ = 

w 0 

« ° “ s « 



E -c 

CO V 

G 


£•0 U 


w 



£ -3 TJ 

CS 4 ) C -o c 

Of CJ ^ 0 ^ D 4 

0 S £ 

o 

CO 


w o 

E 

u 

O 

bc 2 

S o 

V 'Z 

a. 0 ^ a; 5, 

^ .E c CO S 


0 

4 ; 

3 


S ^ 5 52 

0 = ^ j: S 
^ XT — . 0 ^ 

cc 





H 


K 




Cents. 


Per cent. 

Per cent. 

Iron — 

Cents 


Per cent* 

Per cent. 

D.:> equal 

to 


28 

31 to 34 

Round or square 



65 




34 

35 to 371 

iron, or brazier’s 
rods of 3 16 to 





65 

30 

cc 



87 

89 to 99 

10-16 of an inch 
in diameter, per 





u 



46 

75 to 76 

pound, 

2i 

equal to 85 

220 







Iron in sheets, per 





14 






pound. 

2i 


47 

35 to 170 




28 

40 to 100 

Hoop Iron, pr. lb. 
Scroll iron, or case- 

2i 

tc 

137 

100 to 186 


14 

u 



41 

55 to 60 

ment rods, pr. lb. 
Iron cables and 

2^ 

(( 

51 

256 

2 50 






chains, and parts 
thereof, per lb. 

2| 

a 

80 

100 

u 



31 

22 to 42 

Chains, other than 





2 00 

(C 





cables, per lb. 

4 


93 

30 to 175 



39 

40 to 44 

Cut nails, per lb. 
Wrought nails, per 

3 

u * 

43 

89 



1 50 

ic 



40 

30 to 80 

lb. 

4 

a 

44 

50 to 96 







Iron wood screws. 




40 00 






per lb. 

2 

<c 

63 

12 to 137 

iC 



31 

27 to 35 

Pins solid headed. 










per 5,000. 

40 

u 

53 

60 to 70 

25 00 

u 



37 

49 to 83 

Pound pins, per Ib. 
Coni — 

20 

(f 

59 : 


5 

a 



71 

76 to 78 

Per ton. 

Glass — 

1 75 

(C 

61 

62 to 160 

4-t 

u 



188 

85 to 130 

Plain, moulded, 





6 

a 



199 

92 to 115 

pressed, or cut, 
per lb. 

10 to 40 


56 to 186 

152 to 389 

4 

u 



53 

39 to 70 

Window or plate 










. 

glass, per sq. ft. 

2 to 12 

a 

6 to 243 

30 to 198 

5 

a 



49 

80 to 90 

White and red lead 











per lb. 

Linseed oil, pr. gal- 

4 

(C 

66 

100 







lon, 

Su"ar — 

25 

u 

43 

49 to 54 

2.5 00 

c: 



77 

75 to 120 

Brown, raw, per lb. 



71 

65 to 120 






• 

Sirup of sugar, per 





25 00 

cc 



77 

75 to 120 

lb. 

2j 

(C 

181 


9 00 




72 

74 to 90 

Brown, clayed, per 










Ib. 

2i 

t( 

71 

71 to 190 


a 



30 

32 to 40 

Clayed or clarified. 





21 

u 



55 

80 to 150 

per lb. 

4 

IC 

67 

77 to 114 







Refined, per Ib. 

6 

C 6 

,101 

100 

21 

a 



55 

80 to 150 

Sugar candy, pr. lb. 
Molasses — ■ 

6 

iC 

69 


.21 

c< 



41 

1 

1 

21 to 66 

Per pound. 

Muscatel or bloom 

41 

mills 

51 

3.5 to 170 






raisins, per Ib. 

3 cts. “ 

76 

70 to 100 

5 

u 



62 1 


Raisins, all other 









267 to 270 ; 

kinds, per lb. 

2 

a 

72 

70 to 100 

8 

(C 



27 1 

1 

1 

1 

Salt— 

Per bushel. 

8 

(C 

61 

106 to 170 

11 

U - 



34 J 







The above table is made up from the tables appended to the report of the Committee of Ways and 
Means — 28th Congress, 1st session, doc. 306, House of Reps. The number of articles might be quad- 
rupled from that and the late report of Mr. Bibb, Secretary of the Trea.sury. But the table above will 
suffice for the purpose of illustrating the injustice and oppre.ssion of specijic duties. As before remarked, 
the table exhibits — 1st, the articles taxed ; 2d, the specific duty per square ya»-d, pound, bushel, or gal- 
lon ; 3d, the same duty reduced to an average ad valorem on the quantities of the articles, as made up at 
the Treasury Dqj:)artment ; 4th, the duties, according to the ad-valorem standard, actually paid by the 
merchants under the form of the specific duties mentioned in the second column. 

It would seem that a specific duty which would be equal to 30 per cent, ad valorem, would be enough, 
m all conscience, to satisfy the manufacturers, iron-masters, sugar-planters, and salt-boilers, or to raise a 
revenue for the government. But, instead of that reasonable amount, on some of the articles above-men- 
tioned the duty ranges from 30 to over 300 per cent. 

On flannels, for instance, the merchant, when he enters them at the custom-house, pays 14 cents per 
square yard. Some of those flannels cost in England but 14 cents per square yard. Consequently, the mer- 
vchant has to pay 100 per cent, duty, all of which comes out of the person who wears them — the middling 


12 


classes and the poor — for they are the ones who wear cheap flannels. The best and most costly flannels' 
pay but just 14 cents per square yard, and some of them come in at a duty even as low as 40 per cent. 

The tariff’ imposes a specific duty of 2h cents per pound on “sad irons” — irons used by poor washer- 
women for smoothing clothes; and under that duty the importer is obliged to pay on that useful article a 
duty ranging from 80 to 150 per cent, reduced to the ad-valorem standard. _ • 

The tariff’ imposes upon brown sugar a specific duty of 2g cents per pound. Brown sugar costs in 
Cuba from less than 2 to about 3 cents a pound. The duty of 2^ cents therefore reduced to ad valorem, 
is either a little more or a little less than 100 per cent. The payment of duty on actual importations 
ranges from 65 to 190 per cent, when reduced to the ad- valorem standard. 

The same astounding results are exhibited by the table, in relation to molasses, salt, and numerous’, 
other things which are among the prime necessaries of life. _ , 

The specific duty does not, like the minimum, state a positive falsehood, by assuming that an article- 
which costs but 3 cents, for the purpose of imposing the tax, costs 20 cents. But what makes it obnox- 
ious, is, that the consumer cannot know how muck duty he paxjs upon the article on which it is laid, in propor- 
tion to its value, because he has not the means of knowing how much the article costs in the country 
whence it was imported. Like the minimum, the specificduty deceives him, and exacts from him an amount 
of tax on the article which he buys, altogether disproportionate to its cost, and which he would never 
consent to pay if he knew its exact amount. Like the minimum, it is a cheating device, resorted to in or- 
der to accomplish the purposes of a protective tariff’. 

On account of this fraudulent and deceptive character of the specific duty, it should no longer disgrace 
the revenue system of a free people, 'w'ho have a right to know precisely what they pay for the govern- 
ment which they have instituted for their own benefit and protection; and also what they have to pay to- 
the large capitalists engaged in the manufacture of cotton, woollen, iron, sugar, salt, &c., &c. 

I shall now proceed to show that the present tariff discriminates in favor of the manufacturer, against the 
jiroducer of the raio material, who is the agriculturist. 

In the first place, it admits, duty free, or with very light duties, a large class of articles used in manu- 
factures ; while it imposes very heavy duties on all articles ccfiisumed by the agriculturist, wdiich come 
in competition with the articles produced by the manufacturer. 

It admits all berries, nuts, and vegetables used in dying, all dye-woods in the stick, barilla, Brazil wood, 
kelp, lac dye, madder, madder-root, crude saltpetre, shellac, sumac, turmeric, and numerous other articles- 
entering into manufactures, duty free. Indigo pays a specific duty of 5 cents per pound, w'hich is equal 
only to an ad valorem duty of 6 per cent. And bleaching powder pays a duty of 1 cent, per pound. 

The articles above enumerated, and many others, are admitted without any or with very slight duties,, 
in order to benefit or ^^protect” the manufacturer. While-we have seen that the agriculturists, and others 
who purchase them, are taxed on all articles of manufacture coming in competition with domestic articles 
of the same kind, from 30 to 300 per cent. 

To benefit the manufacturer, the low-priced wool — the only wool which comes in competition with 
that raised by the American wool-grower — is admitted at 5 per cent, ad valorem. While the farmer, 
who raises wool, has to pay for the cloth into which it is manufactured, 40 per cent. 

To benefit the manufacturer, flax is admitted at a specific duty of §i20 per ton, which is equal to 8 per 
cent, ad, valorem; while the consumer is taxed 25 per cent, on all articles into which it is manufactured. 

Raw hides, Avhich come in competition with the farmer, are admitted at the trifling duty of 5 per cent, 
ad valorem ; while the sole leather, into which they are manufactured, is protected by a specific duty of 
6 cents per pound — equal to an ad valorem duty, according to the Treasury returns, of 53 per cent. 

Bristles pay a specific duty of J per cent., equal to 3 per cent, ad valorem; while the brushes into 
which they are manufactured, pay 30 per cent. 

Linseed pays a duty of only 5 per cent.; while linseed oil, into which it is manufactured, pays 25 
■cents per gallon — equal to 43 per cent, ad valorem. 

Rags pay a specific duty of j of a cetit per pound — tequal to 6 per cent, ad valorem ; while the paper 
into w'hich they are manufactured pays from 3 cens to 17 cents specific — equal to an ad valorem duty 
ranging from 16 to 97 per cent. 

These exanqfles would seem to be sufficient to prove conclusively to the most unprejudiced mind, that 
the main object of the present tariff is to pamper and enrich the manufacturers at the expense of all other classes 
of the community. But, to stump this character of favoritism indelibly upon it, I will mention one- 
more instance. 

The tariff imposes on all silk fabrics a specific duty, which, reduced to an equivalent ad valorem,, 
ranges from 22 to 42 per cent.; on woollen manufactures, 40 per cent.; on cotton, or of which that is a. 
component part, from 30 to 162 per cent. There is, however, a clause in it, which admits “ lastings, 
prunellas, and similar fabrics, in strips, not specified, for the manufacture of buttons,” at 5 per cent, ad 
valorem. This clause was inserted expressly to ‘■^ protect’'’ the large button manufacturers in Massachu- 
setts and Connecticut, who pay on all the material for covering the immense quantity of buttons made 
by them, a duty of only 5 ])er cent. Who would think of importing “s/n’ps” of lasting, prunella,, 
satin, &c., but they.^ And how are these “strips” obtained.^ It is in this manner: Those gentlemen 
button manufacturers go to France or England, purchase the material for covering buttons in webs, have- 
it torn or cut into “ strips,’’ and in that form they introduce the immense quantity they use in their bu- f 
siness, at a duty of only five per cent. The buttons are protected with a duty of 25 per cent. In conse- 
quence of this favoritism of an unju.st tariff law', which resorts to all kinds of devices and subterfuges to- 
benefit the m-anufacturing interests, the button manufacturers of Massachusetts are rapidly accumulating 
immense fortunes, at the expense of their fellow'-citizens of the Union. 

I might adduce a long array of instances in which the present tariff’ discriminates in favor of the ma- 
nufacturer, against the producer of the raw material and the consumer. But I must pass on to the last, 
proposition which I shall attempt to establish in this communication, viz : That the present tariff discri— 


13 


niinates in favor of the rich consumer, ao;ainst the poor consumer — in other words, it imposes the lightest 

u rj on the articles consumed by the rich, and the heaviest duty upon those consumed by the poor; thus exempting 
capital, and taxing lvboy\ ^ r » r 

A few examples must suffice. It taxes the rich man but 31 to 34 per cent, on liis fine Wilton carpet, 
w lie It makes the man in middle life pay from 46 to 99 per cent, on his common ingrain carpet. 

It taxes the rich woman but 30 per cent, on her fine French muslin dress, while it taxes the poor wo- 
man as high as 160 per cent, for her cheap calico. 

It taxes the rich man only 14 cents per yard on his fine flannel, which costs in England 31 cents, 
^hich IS equal to a duty of 40 per cent, ad valorem ; while it taxes the poor man 14 cents per yard on 
which cost in England only 14 cents, being equal to an ad valorem duty of 100 per 

It taxes the rich silk dress worn by the lady of fashion but 22 per cent.; while it taxes the poor wo- 
man for her silk dress, made of the poorest and cheapest material, 42 per cent. 

It taxes the sad-iron of the poor washerwoman from 80 to 150 percent.; the hatter’s and tailor’s irons 
from 80 to 150 per cent.; the blacksmith, for his anvil and hammer, from 36 to 65 per cent.; and the far- 
mer, for his axes, hoes, shovels, spades, and chains, from 30 to 175 per cent.; — while it taxes the gold 
watch of the dandy but 7| per cent.; diamonds, gems, and cameos, 7.7 per cent.; and jewelry, generally, 
but 20 per cent. 

On foolscap writing-paper, used by all classes of people, it imposes a duty equal to 97 per cent.; but 
gilt paper pays only 25 per cent., billet-doux paper 30 per cent., and French envelopes, “plain, orna- 
mented and colored,” 30 per cent. 

It compels the planter and farmer to pay from 30 to 150 per cent, on the iron and iron implements 
which they use; from 65 to 190 per cent, on the sugar they consume , 35 to 170 on the molasses, and 
106 to 170 on the salt they have to purchase. 

But it is unnecessary to multiply instances of this enormous extortion upon the producing and consum- 
ing classes, for the benefit of the manufacturers, through the instrumentality of the present tariff. And 
what is the effect of this infamous system — infamous, with its piratical devices of the minimum and spe- 
cific duties.^ It is to transfer money from the pockets of the coiuuming classes to the pockets of the manufactu- 
rers. Its tendency is to impoverish the many, and to entich the^eta. Its direct efiect is to create immense 
fortunes for the recipients of its bounties ; while it abstracts the substance from, and degrades, the masses 
-of the people. It establishes an aristocracy of wealth. Money brings with it political as well as moral 
power. The rich employers control their dependents; they dictate their votes at the ballot-box ; they" 
control their bread, and thus coerce their subservience ; they weave about them the web of inexorable 
necessity, which makes them victims of a worse system of slavery than the inherited servitude of the 
African. If the system which produces such results is not itself subverted, it requires no prophet’s eye 
to see that it will not be long in working a radical change in our republican institutions, which will find 
their catastrophe in an aristocracy of titles, noble blood,"” and a crowned head ! 

In my next I shall endeavor to show the cost of protection to the people of this country, and the im- 
mense amount which they pay under the tariff system of taxation, in the form of revenue to the govern- 
ment, and in bounties to the manufacturers. BUNDELCUND. 

No. 6. — Explanation. — The present tariff further considered. — It adds humbuggeryto injustice. — The enomnous 
amount it compels the people to pay in the shape of revenue to the Government, and bounty to the manufacturer. 

Before proceeding to the topics which I propose to discuss in this communication, I feel bound, in 
justice to myself, to pay a passing notice to a short communication which appeared in the “Union” of 
Monday evening, over the signature of “Verity,” and which purported to come from some person resid- 
ing in Boston. 

I w'as rejoiced to have it in my power to welcome a fellow-laborer hailing from that quarter, and profes- 
sing the great truths which I have been attempting to sustain. Concurring in .sentiment and opinion, as we 
'do, in relation to the operation and effects of the present tariff, I readily forgave him the criticism in 
which he was pleased to indulge upon my feeble efforts, although it was entirely unfounded, as I will 
now proceed to show. 

The writer alleges that, in treating of the minimum duties, I “assumed the postulate ” that the coarse 
goods are imported under the minimums; whereas, in truth, they are not, but are prohibited by the op- 
•eration of the minimum duty. And the effect of this prohibition is, to give to the manufacturer a monop- 
oly of the sale of the cheaper fabrics, and to' enable him to increase their price to any amount he pleases, 
always taking care notio raise it so high as to enable the foreign manufacturer to introduce his fabrics, 
■and thus compete with him in the American market at a remunerating profit. In other words, the effect 
of the minimum duty on coarse and cheap fabrics is to give a bounty to the manufacturer, while it adds not 
one cent to the revenues of the Government. 

If “Verity” had carefully read my communications, he would have seen that I a.ssumed no such 
“postulate.” But, on the contrary, I expressly stated, twice at least, in general terms, that the effect of 
the minimum duty was to prohibit the importation of the cheaper cotton fabrics on which it operated, 
thus enabling the manufacturer to increase the price of the domestic article, without contributing at all to 
the revenue of the Government. 

In my third number, after explaining what I understood to be a protective tariff, I added: “In some 
instances t!ie duties imposed by the existing tariff amount to total prohibition. I refer to the coarse kinds 
■of cotton cloths, of which the manufixeturers of this country now produce an ample supply. By this 
prohibitive duty, imposed through the aid of tlie fraudulent and cheating device of the minimum principle^ 
the manufacturer is enabled to fix his own price upon the coarse fabrics, actually charging his owncoun 
try men more for them than he sells them for in foreign markets. Thus, in respect to this article, al' 
irevenue is defeated.” 


14 


Again, in my fourth number, after explaining the manner in which the minimum duty operates, I 
added: “The effect of this enormous duty is to exclude the coarse cottons from our market, and to leave 
the American mamifacturer of those articles a complete monopoly of their sale.” 

It appears, therefore, that I assumed no such “postulate” that minimum duties were not prohibitive^ 
(although the assumes such a postulate :) but, on the contrary, that they were, in respect to the- 
coarser and cheaper manufactures of cotton, prohibitive; thus defeating all revenue from those descrip- 
tions of manufactures, and operating 0 )ily to give a bounty to the manufacturer. All high duties operate 
in the same way. The ad valorem, as well as the specific and minimum, if sufficiently high upon the 
articles on which they are imposed, will prohibit or prevent their importation. The cheaper woollen 
fabrics, which are worn by the middling classes and the poor, are undoubtedly, to some extent, prohibi- 
ted by the exorbitant ad valorem duty of 40 per cent, imposed upon them. Therefore, I am happy to 
say, that there is a perfect concurrence of views between “Verity” and myself on this point, and that 
we both assume the same “postulate” in reference to the effects of high duties. He wall .see, in the 
course of this article, that I understand the manner in which high and prohibitory duties operate to defeat 
revenue, and to give a bounty to the manufacturer; thus, in fact, taxing the people enormously for the 
benefit of the manufacturer, and not for the support of the Government. But, as a preliminary topic, or 
rather one cognate to those I have already discussed, I must proceed to show the h wnhuggery of the present 
tariff. 

It would seem to have been sufficient for the framers of the pre.sent tariff to hoodwink and delude the* 
great mass of consumers into the payment of enormous duties on articles consumed by them, through 
the aid of the fraudulent and cheating devices of the minimum and specific duties. But those were not 
sufficient. The people must not only be deceived and cheated, but they must be humbugged. The 
framers of the tariff' were conscious, if some expedient were not resorted to in order to divert the atten- 
tion of the people from the enormous taxes which it imposed upon them, that they would not long submit, 
to its oppressive exactions, but would speedily demand its repeal. And hence they — the agricultural 
portion of them, at least — must be humbugged with a little pretended protection on the articles produced 
by them. Therefore, we find in the present tariff a duty of 25 cents per bushel imposed upon wheat, 
20 cents per bushel on barley, 15 cents per bushel on rye, 10 cents per bushel on oats, 10 cents per- 
bushel on Indian corn, 20 cents per hundred weight on Indian meal, 70 cents per cwt. on wheat flour,, 
10 cents per bushel on jmtatoes, 3 cents per pound on cotton, &c., c^c. 

In order to exhibit this peculiar feature of the tariff of 1842 in a more striking light, I have prepared a 
table of the articles on which these humbug duties are imposed, exhibiting the quantity exported from, 
this country, and the quantity imported, during the year ending June 30, 1844. It will show the farmers- 
and planters the precise amount of protection which they derive from the humbug duties imposed by the 
existing tariff, pretendedly for their benefit: 

TABLE. 


Articles. 

Quantity 

exported. 

Wheat, bushels; 

548,917 

Wheat flour, bbls. 

1,438.574 

Indian corn, Imshels, 

825,282 

Indian meal, bbls. 

247,882 

Rye meal, “ 

.32,690 

Rolatoes, bushels. 

182,238 

Cotton, Bounds, 

657,534,379 


*OfUie cotton imported, 10,801,478 


Quantity Rate of! Articles, 
imported, duty, j 
cents. 

446 25i 

243 cwt. 70! 

5 lOTallow, “ 

2 cwt. 20' Butter, 
none jciieese, “ 

100,72.7 lOjLard, “ 

10,889,401* 3iBeef, bbls. 

iPork, “ 

IS. were from Texas. jHanis and bacon, lbs. 


Quantity 

Quantity Rate of 

exported. 

imported. 

duty. 

cents. 

A -oo --Cl i hard, 
i soft,’ 

29,874 lbs 

4 

1 bbl 

. 50 

9,91.5,366 

6,828 

1 

3,251,952 

1,815 

S 

7,,343, 145 

56,945 

0 

25,746.3.55 

' 47 

3. 

106,474 ) 
161,629 5 

259,379 lbs 

. 2 

3,886,970 

26,499 

3. 


Thus, it xvill be seen, from the table above, that of the principal agricultural staples of the country, aji 
immensely greater quantity were exported to foreign countries than were imported into this country, of 
the articles of a like kind coming in competition with them ; thus showing that the farmers and planters 
of this country produce a large surplus of those articles beyond the consumption of the country, which 
'imost find a market abroad, or perish upon their hands. How idle, then, is it to talk about protecting 
ai'ticles of which we produce a large surplus, and which must find consumers in foreign countries!' 
How can the foreign producer of cotton aflbrd to bring his commodity to this country, and compete with 
the American planter, who can undersell him in any market in the world How absurd is it to talk of 
protecting wheat, when our fixrmers raise millions of bushels more than can be consumed in this country,, 
and which they can sell at a lower rate than any other wheat-growers in the world. And how ridicu- 
lous, not to say insulting to the farmer, it is to talk to him about a protective duty often cents per bushel 
•on potatoes, when he is glad, in good seasons, to sell them to the starch manufacturer at from ten to 
twelve cents per bushel, as thousands do in the middle and northern States. How absurd to talk of pro- 
tecting butter, cheese, lard, beef, pork, &c., when our fanners raise millions upon millions of pounds more 

than can be consumed in this country, which they must export to other countries. Yet these duties 

humbug duties they deserve to be called — are introduced into the present tariff by its framers, to reconcile 
them to the enormous bounties which it compels them to pay to the manufacturer, the iron-master, the 
sugar-planter, the salt-boiler, and even to the pin-maker; for the whole nation of women are put under 
contribution, in order to raise tribute for the benefit of one or two pin-makers in Rhode Island, where 
white men are treated like slaves, and robbed of that glorious badge of American citizenship, the right of 
suffrage. 

Thus the leading features of the present tariff seem to be made up of deception, fraud, humbuo-o-ery 
and oppression. y >• 

It remains to be seen whether the farmers and planters of this country will allow themselves to be- 
duped, by the humbug protection held out to them, into the support of a law which is daily robbing therm 
of their substance, and transferring it to comparatively a few capitalists protected by the resent tariff. 


15 


I shall now proceed to show the enormous amount which the tariff yearly taxes the people of this 
country, in the shape of duties to the Government and bounties to the manufacturers. 

If the system ot raising revenue by duties on imports exacted no more from the people than the amount 
of the duties imposed on the commodities on which it operated, it would be relieved of very much of tifce 
objection which now exists against such a system in any form. But, in addition to the revenue which 
it raises for the Government, it compels the people to pay on those articles of which an adequate supply 
is not produced in this country, at least four times as much more, in the shape of bounties to the manu- 
facturer. 

I assume that the imposition of a duty enhances the price of the commodity on which it is imposed, in 
a proportion very nearly the same as the amount of the duty. Nothing but folly or audacity would 
prompt any person possessed of sanity to deny this proposition. The manufacturers are not such wise- 
acres as to desire high duties, if they were to reduce the prices of their fabrics. None but the simpletons 
and the knaves of the protective school advance such doctrines. I shall therefore proceed in my argu- 
ment upon the assumption that the duty increases pro rata the price of the commodity on which it is 
imposed. Thus, the duty of 40 per cent, imposed by the present tariff upon a yard of woollen broad- 
cloth costing in England |2, would add to its price 80 cents. Therefore, when it passed the custom-house 
of this country, its cost, in con.sequence of the duty, would be i|2 80. This duty of 80 cents goes into 
the treasury of the United States, in the shape of revenue. 

But this is not the whole effect of the duty. The importing merchant advances this 80 cents to the 
Government ; and, when he sells the cloth to the retailer, he charges his profit of 10 per cent, (or what- 
ever it may be) on the 80 cents duty which he has paid, as well as on the first cost of the cloth. In the 
hands of the retailer, the elements of the cost are as follows, viz : ^2 for the cloth, 80 cents for the duty, 
20 cents (being 10 per cent, profit to the importer) on the cloth, and 8 cents (being 10 per cent, profit on 
the duty) which the importer has paid and charged to the retailer. Thus the cost to the retailer is ^.3 08. 
But he must have his 20 per cent, profit ; and thus the cloth, when it reaches the consumer, costs the latter 
69. If the cloth had been taxed with no duty, it would have cost the consumer as follows : first cost 
in England, ^2 ; profit for the importer, 10 per cent. — equal to 20 cents ; making, in the whole, |2 20. ; 
profit to the retailer, 20 per cent, on the last named sum — making the whole cost to the consumer ^2 64 
This sum, deducted from the $3 69, shows precisely the amount which the consumer has to pay in con- 
sequence of the duty, which is |1 05 moce than the amount of the duty. Even this could be borne with 
patience, if it were not attended with a still more unjust effect. In consequence of the duty, the price of the 
domestic fabric, coming in competition with the imported one, is increased in precisely the same ratio. But, in- 
stead of that increase of price, which is also a tax on the consumer, going into the treasury, it goes into the 
pockets of the manufacturer, and is in fact no mm'e than a gratuity or bounty to him. 

I will now proceed to make a practical application of the analytical principles which I have attempted 
to elucidate, to certain commodities imported from other countries, and their correlatives of domestic ma- 
nufacture or production, in order to demonstrate the amount which the consumer pays in consequence of 
the duties imposed upon them in the shape of revenue to the Government, and the immensely greater 
amount which he pays, in the shape of bounty, to the home manufacturer. 

I take the importations of the year ending June 30, 1844, and the amount of domestic manufactures as 
shown by the census of 1840, with 12 per cent, added thereto, for increased production duiang the four 
subsequent years. I begin with the — 

Woollen manufactures. — The amount of woollen manufactures imported into the country during the 
year ending June 30, 1844, (exclusive of blankets, paying specific duties,) and worsted goods, yarns, 
rnits,&c., was . - - - , ^5,44.3,652 

'The amount of duties collected on this sum, at 40 per cent., was - - - " ^2,178,260 

To the amount of duty, add 10 per cent, upon the duty for the importer’s profits, and 20 per 

cent, for the retailer’s, VIZ. 30 per cent. 653,478 

^2,831,738 

Thus it appears that the original cost of the imported article is increased over 50 percent, when it 
reaches the consumer. It increases the price of the domestic article in the same proportion. We will 
now see the whole amount paid by the people of this country, in consequence of the duty imposed on the 


foreign article. 

I take the amount of the woollen manufacture in 1840, as appears by the census tables, 

which is - - - - -^0,696,999 

To which I add 12 per cent, for the increased production during the last 4 years - - 2,483,639 

$23,180,638 


Fifty per cent, added to that amount, in consequence of the duty on the imported article, 

whic]^ increases the price in that proportion to the consumer, is - - - - $11,590,316 

Add to this the duty on the imported article, and the profits of the importer and the retailer 

upon that duty, amounting to------- - 2,831,738 

And the result is---------- $14,422,054 


Which is the amount the people of this country are obliged to pay, in order to get $2,178,260 into the 
treasury. In other words, on all the woollen fabrics (exclusive of those descriptions omitted in the cal- 
' dilation, as before stated) which they consume, they pay $2,178,260 in duty to the Govermejit, and $11,- 
590,316 in bounty to the uwollen manufacturers ! 

Cotton manufactures — The whole amount of cotton manufactures imported in 1844, was - $13,641,478 

which was levied a duty of .30 per cent, ad valorem, amounting (in consequence of the 
minimum valuations, which raised the average duty much higher than 30 per cent.) to - $4,999,401 


16 


To which are to be added the profits of theimporter and retailer on the duty, viz. 30 per cent., 
amounting to - 

■$6,499,221 

Which sum is a little over 47 per cent, on the first cost, in consequence of the duty. 

The whole value of the cotton manufacture in this country, in 1840, was - - _ 46,350,453' 

To which add 12 per cent, for increased production durjiig the last four years - _ 5,562,054 

$51,912,507 

The cost of wliich will be increased to the con.sumers, in consequence of the duty on the for 

eign article, 47 per cent., amounting to - - - - - - " 24,398,878" 

To this sum add the duty on the imported manufactures, and the profits of the importer and 
retailer on the dxity, estimated at 30 per cent. 

And the whole sum is - $30,898,099' 


Thus are the people of this country compelled to pay the enormous sum of $30,898,099 order to get 
$4,999,401 into the treasury. In other words, they pay $4,999,401 in the shape of duty to the Govern- 
ment, and $24,398,'878 in tlie shape of bounty to the cotton manufacturers. 

Iron, pig and bar . — The quantity of pig iron imported in 1844 was 14,944 tons, at the original cost of 
$200,562, or about $13 60 per ton. The amount of duty, at $9 50 per ton, was - - $134,496 

30 per cent, added, for the profits of the importer and retailer on the duty, is - - _ 30,358 - 

Amounting in the whole to- - - - - - - - “ $164,844 

Which is 82 per cent, oh the first cost. Tons. 

The whole quantity of pig iron manufactured in this country in 1840 was - • - _ 286,003 

Add 12 per cent, for the increased production during the last four years - - . 22,488 

309,391 • 

The price of wliich is increased to the consumer, in consequence of the duty on the foreign 

article, $9 50 per ton ; which amounts on the 309,291 tons, to - - - - $2,929,619 

Add 30 per cent, for the profits of the manufacturer and retailer in consequence of the duty 

on the foreign article, which amounts to- - - - - - - 878,885 

$3,808,504 

To which sum should be added the duty on the imported article, and the profits of the im- 
porter and retailer on the duty, amounting to ----- - 164,844 

$3,973,348 

Thus, in order to get $134,496 into the trea.sury on the article of pig iron, the people of this country 
are compelled to pay the enormous sum of $3,973,000. In other words, they pay $134,496 in the shape 
of duty to the Government, and $3,808,504 in bounty to the iron masters. 

The results in relation to bar and rolled iron are equally striking. The quantity of bar iron manufac- 
tured by rolling and otherwise, imported into this country in 1844, was 49,713^ tons, at the original cost 
of $1,648,647. That portion of it manufactured by rolling amounted, in quantity, to 37,891 4-20th tons, 
cost $1,065,582, or about $28 15 per ton, and paid a specific duty of $22 50 per ton — equivalent to an 
ad valorem duty of 89 per cent. The remainder amounted, in quantity, to 11,822 ll-20th tons, cost 
$583,065, or about $49 30 per ton, and paid a specific duty of $17 per ton — equivalent to an ad valorem, 
duty of 34 per cent. Not caring to be precise, I will take the whole quantity of both kinds as the basis 
of my calculation ; the avcnige duty on which, reduced to the ad-valorem standard, was 66 per cent. 

The amount of duty collected on the whole quantity impoirted, was - - - - $1,148,26.3 

To which add 30 per cent, for the profits of the importer and retailer on the duty, amounting to 344,478’ 

$1,492,741 

Tlie quantity of bar iron manufactured by rolling and otherwise, in this country, in 1840, was 197,233 
tons, which, with 12 per cent, on the quantity, added for increased production since 1840, will give 
220,901 tons as the qu.antity q)roduced in 1844. Taking the lowest rate of the specific duty, ^most favor- 
able to the iron master,) which is $17 per ton, and the quantity produced in 1844 will be increased in 
value to the amount of - $3,745,318' 

To which sum add ,30 per cent, for the profits of the manufacturer and retailer, which they 
are enabled to charge in consequence of the duty on the foreign article, amounting to - 1,123,395 

$4,868,713- 

To which are to be added the duty and the profits of the importer and retailer on the duty 

laid on the foreign article, amounting (as stated above) to - - - - - 1,492,741 

$6,361,454 

Thus are the people of this country obliged to pay the sum of $6,361,454, in order to get $1,148,263 on. 
bar iron into the treasury. In other words., they pay $1,148,263 in the shape of duty to the Government,, 
and $4,868,713 in the shape of boxinty to the iron masters. 

Sxigar is the next article which I will notice. The whole quantity of brown sugar imported in 1844,. 
was 179,857,491 pounds, costing in the countries whence imported, $6,793,540, or a little less than 3' 
cents 8 mills per pound, and paying a specific duty of 2i cents per pound. The quantity of white clayed 
sugar imported was 4,931,516 pounds, the original cost of which was $267,704, or a little over 5 cents 6- 
mills per pound, and paying a duty of. 4 cents specific. The quantity of loaf, refined sugar, and candy, 
imported in 1844, was 2,219,634 pmmds, costing $134,454, or a little more than 6 cents per pound, and 
paying a .specific duty of 6 cents. I make my calculation on the whole quantity of 186,808,641 pounds, 
assuming it to be charged with the lowest rate of duty, which is 2| cents per pound, which is most favor- 
jable to the sugar planter, and which would amount to - " - - - - $4,770,216* 


17 


To wliich add 30 per cent, for the profits of llie importer and retailer on the duty, 
amounting to $1,431,064 

. . . $6,201,280 
llie quantity of sugar manufactured in this country in 1840, was 1.55,110,809 pounds ; to which add 
12 per cent, foi increased production in 1844, making, in the whole, 173,724,106; which, at the cost of 
the foreign article, which will average about 4 cents per pound, would be worth $6,948,964. In conse- 
quence of the duty, the whole quantity of the domestic article would be increased 2.j cents per pound, 
which increase would amount to - - - - - - - $4,341,602 

Add 30 per cent, to this sum, for the profits of the sugar planter and retailer, which they 
are enabled to charge in consequence of the duty, amounting to - - - - 1,302,480 

rp . ’ . . '$5,644,082 

To this is to be added the amount of duty dn the foreign article, and the profits of the im- 
porter and manufacturer on the duhj 6,201,280 


$11,845,362 

Thus the people of this country are obliged to pay the enormous sum of $11,845,362, in order to get 
$4,770,216 into the treasury. In other words, they pay $4,770,216 in the shape of duty to the Govern- 
ment, and $5,644,082 in the shape of bounty to the sugar planter. 

Salt is the next and last article I will notice.. The number of bushels imported-in 1844 was 8,243,139, 
at a cost of $911,512, or a little over 11 cents per bushel. The duty impo.sed by the present tariff is 8 
cents per bushel, and amounted, on the whole quantity imported, to - - - $6.59,451 

Add 30 per cent for the profits of the importer and retailer on the duty, viz : - - 197,835 

857,286 

The quantity of .salt manufactured in this country in 1840 was 6,179,272 bushels ; to which is to be 
added 12 per cent, for the increased manufacture in 1844, making the whole quantity 6,920,954 bushels ; 
which would, in consequence of the duty on the foreign article, be increased in cost to the consumer 8 
cents per bushel, amounting, in the whole, to - _ _ _ - - $553,676 

To which add 30 per cent, for the profits of the manufacturer and retailer, which they are 

enabled to chai’ge in consequence of the duty, viz. _ - _ _ . 166,102 

$719,778 

To which sum is to be added the amount of the duty on the foreign article, and the profits 
of the importer and retailer on the duly, viz. 857,286 


$1,577,064 

Thus are the people of this country compelled to pay the sum of $1,577,064, in order to get the sum of 
$659,451 into the treasury. In other words, they pay $659,451 in the shape of duty to the Govei-ninentf 
and $719,778 in the shape of bounty to the manufaeturer. 

I will now sum up’tltese results, and exhibit them in a single point of view: 


ARTICLES. 


'3 


0 5 

1 w 

2 o 
a to 


ns -a 
'3 § 

e. 


S w «■= 
a-ii « o 

7 - o - .S 


3 

O _ 


; « c c-o 

> - u 3 S 
: o o) s o 

_ ."r Qj ’3 


^ 3 
O C 

^ 2 
c s 

C " 


.3 2 > 


X 

3 p - aj 

Q Cl ^ _ 

P ^ 1 

c. o) tcu 


a> w 




o « 3 

rt = « 
tc -C 


5 c 
goo 


Woollen manufactures 
Cotton manufactures 
Iron, pig 

Iron, bar and rolled 

.Sugar 

Salt 


$7,178,230 

4,909,401 

134,49.3 

1,148,263 

4,770,213 

659,451 

$13,890,087 


$12,243,7.94 

2.'),.S98,698 

3,838,852 

5,21.3,191 

7,175,146 

917,613 

$.55,237,294 


$14,422,054 
30,898,099 . 
3,973,348 
6,361,454 
11,945,332 
1,577,064 

$89,177,381 


Thus it will be seen, from the recapitulation above, that, on the six articles above named, in order to get 
$13,890,087 into the treasury in the shape of revenue, the people of this country are, by the operation 
of the present tariff law, compelled to pay $69,177,381 — more than FIFTY-FIVE MILLIONS of 
which go, mainly in the form of BOUNTY, into the pockets of the manufacturers, iron-masters, sugar- 
planters, and salt-^nakers. 

The whole amount of revenue raised in 1844, by duties on foreign imports, avas $28,980,556. In or- 
der to raise this sum for the benefit of the Government, the consumers are taxed, in the whole, to the 
enormous amount of ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, at 
least — which goes, in part, for profits to the importers and retailers, but mainly in the form of BOUNTY 

to the manufacturers. • i i 

Is it to be wondered at, that, under such an oppressive system, the business of the agriculturist and 
the unprotected mechanic languishes, and those meritorious classes of our citizens find themselves yearly 
more and more impoverished, while a few manufacturers are dividing 20 per cent, on their capital, and 
adding hundreds of thou.sands each year to their already princely fortunes.^' 

It is in this method, by means of a protective tariff, that the wealth and substance of the masses are trans- 
ferred to the pockets of the few. What will be the end of such a system, but to establish^ an aristocracy 
based upon wealth and chartered privileges, which will in time become an aristocracy of titles, orders of 


18 


nobility, headed by the trappings and the substance of monarchy? But I have not time nor roofm in 
this article to pursue these reflections. They will be reserved for another occasion. 

In conclusion, I will remark, that the course of reasoning v/hich I have pursued will apply only to 
•articles coming in competition with the domestic article, and entenng into the general consumption of the 
covntnj. Duties upon articles of which we raise a large surplus for exportation to other countries, would 
have no effect to enhance their prices. They are, as I have before shown, mere humbug duties, intro- 
duced into the present tariff for the purpose of hoodwinking the farmers and planters, and reconciling 
them to the enormous and rapacious exactions, of which they are the victims. BUNDELCUND. 

jNfo. 7. — Authorities in favor of the proposition that duties enhance prices. — The effect of taxation considered. — 

British taxation. — The solution of the problem of free government involved in the questions of revenue and. 

expenditure. — The American and British protective tariffs compared. — The present American tariff icill de- 
feat revenue, and compel the Government to resort to direct taxation. — Mr. Clay expects that such a result 

will follov) from the continuance of the protective system. 

In my last communicaiion, in entering upon my argument to show the enormous and absolutely 
startling amount which, in order to get a comparatively small sum into the treasury, in the shape of rev- 
enue, the people of this country are compelled to pay, in the shape of bounties to the manufacturers and 
other protected classes, I assumed the proposition “that the imposition of a. duty enhances the price of 
the commodity on which it is imposed, in a proportion very nearly the same as the amount of the duty.” 

And I also added, that “ nothing but folly or audacity would prompt any person possessed of sanity 
to deny this proposition. The manufacturers are not such wiseacres as to desire high duties, if they 
were to reduce the prices of their fabrics. None but the simpletons and the knaves of the protective 
school advance such doctrines.” 

1 will now proceed to show that the •wise men — and I presume my whig friends will insist, the honest 
men — of the protective school do not advance such absurdities, (or perhaps I might, with more propriety, 
say such hypocritical assumptions) as that duties do not enhance the price of commodities on w'hich 
they are laid. 

I will first call upon Henry Clay to testify — the same Henry Clay who is the head and captain-gene- 
ral of the protective paz’ty, and the late, if not the present, “ embodiment” of the “ universal whig party.” 
In one of his speeches in favor of a protective tariff, he says : 

The exporter of an article, if he invests itf5 proceeds in a foreign market, takes cate to make the investment in such 
merchandise as, when brought home, he can sell with a fair profit; and, consequently, the consumer would pay the origi- 
nal cost, and charges and piofits." — Vol. 2, p. 36, Life and Speeches of Henry Clay, published by Greeley & McElraih, 1844. 

Again : 

If there is any truth in political economy, it c.annot be that result will agree with the prediction ; for we are instructed, 
ly all experience, that the consumption of any article is in proportion to the reduction of its price, and that, jn general, it 
may be taken as a rule, that the duty on an article forms a portion of its price.” — Same volume, page 144. 

The next witness I will cite is the “godlike” champion of protection — no less a personage than Daniel 
Webster. This gentleman, in a speech in the U. States Senate, on the subject of the tariff’, in 1824, says: 

“ Our whole annual consumption of this article (iron) is supposed by the chairman of tlie committee to be 48,000 or 
50,000 tons. J>et us suppose the latter. The amount of our own manufacture he estimates, I think, at 12,000 tons. The 
present d uty (1824) on the import'd article is $1.5 per ton ; and as this duty catises, of course, an equivalent augmentation of 
ihe price of the home manufacture, the witole increase of price is equal to .$75,000 annually. This sum we pay on a raw 
material, and niion an absolute necessary of life. The bill proposes to raise the duty from $15 to $22 .50 per ton, which 
would be equal to $1,125,000 on the whole annual consumption. So that, suppose the point of prohibition, which is aimed 
at by some gentlemen, to be attained, the consumers of the article would pay this last-mentioned sum every year to the produ- 
cers of it, over and above the price at which they could supply themselves with the same article from other sources.” 

I will next cite the testimony of the venerable ex-President John Gluincy Adams, also a distinguished 
advocate of protective duties. In a report made by him, as chairman of the Committee on Mamifac- 
tures, to the blouse of Representatives, in 1832, he says : 

“ The doctrine that duties of impost cheapen the price of the articles upon which they are levied, seems to conflict with 
tire dictates of coininon sense. The duty operates as a bounty, or premium, to the domestic manufacturer. But by whom 
is It paid ^ Certaiidy by the purchaser of the article, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture. 7'ho duty constitutes a 
part of the price of the whole mass of the articles in market. It is substantially paid upon the article of domestic manufac- 
ture, as well as upon that of foreign jrroduction. Upon the one it is a BOUNTY — upon the other a BURDEN ; and the re- 
peal of the tax must operate as an equivalerH reduction of the price of the .article, whether foreign or domestic. * * * 

The general and permanent effect must ne to increase the price of the article to the extent of the addiuonal duty ; and it is 
then paid by the consumer.” 

I might, perhaps, content myself v/ith these high authorities from the American whig school; but I 
Rave also some British whig authorities, equally as conclusive, to the course of which no American whig 
can, with propriety, object. 

The first British authority I will quote is Sir William Blackstone, an author whose eloquent and 
plausible eulogies of the British government have converted many a young and promising republican 
into a monarchist or federalist, and who, therefore, is an especial favorite with the federal party, under 
their present surreptitious cognomen of whigs. He says: 

“ These customs are, then, we see, a tax, immediately paid by the merchant, although ultimately by the consumer’ 
* * * There IS also another ill consequence attending high imposts on merchandise, not frequently considered; 

but indisputably certain ; that the earlier any tax is laid on a commodity, the heavier it falls upon the consumer in the end 
for every trader through whose hands it jiasses must have a profit, not only on the r.wv material, and his own l.abor and 
time in preparing it, but also upon the rerii tax itself which he advances to the government ; otherwise he loses the use 
.and interest of the money which he so advances. — Blackstone’s Commentaries, vol. i, pp. 316, 317. 

I cite another British witness. Mr. Porter, in his “Progress of the Nation,” vol. iii, page 82, says: 

“ It (protection) enhances, by the whole rate of the import duty, the jirice of all the (silk) .goods made at home, and is there- 
fore equal to a yearly ta.x of nearly four millions of money levied upon the community, without yielding any proportionate 
advantage to the exchequer, even to the trade for the supposed benefit of which it is kept up.” 


19 


The next and last authority I will quote is Mr. McCulloch, the celebrated British writer on political' 
economy. In his late work on Taxation, (page 162,) in speaking of the British duty of 2jd. on butter,, 
lie says : 

“ It is necessary to hear in mind, in eslimatina; its influence, th it U not merely aM Qid per pound to the price of (he 
250,000 cu’t. imported^ hut aho to the immense quantity produced at home ; for, wei'c it not for the duty, foreign butter would 
be sold here for 2rd. less than it costs at present; and, as there cannot be two prices of the same article in the same mar- 
ket, tlie price of native butter would be proportionably lowered. ” 

I might multiply authorities almost ad infmitani, and cite a Itundred articles in our own tariff, at least, 
to prove the truth of the proposition which I maintain ; but it is unnecessary. I trust they will be satis*- 
factory to the main body of my readers, of whatever party they may be, and sufficient to weigh down a- 
regiment of the muddy-headed theorists and sinister fictionists of the protective school, who contend for 
a contrary doctrine, and whose microscopic vision can discern no other cause for the reduction of prices' 
during the period commencing thirty years past, and ending at the present time, than the tariff. 

The witnesses I have cited also prove the cognate proposition wduch, in my last number, I laid down, i}> 
connexion with this subject, viz: theit the duty on the foreign commodity increases the price of the domestic 
commodity of a like kind, inthe same proportion in uthich it increases the price of the foreign article. 

The statistical results of the two propositions were fully demonstrated in my last number. 

I will now proceed to show the general effects of taxation, in all forms — whether by imposts, excises, 
or direct taxes — upon a community. 

In my first number, I stated, in the words of McCulloch, that “a tax is a portion, or the value of a 
portion, of the property or labor of individual!^, taken from them by the Government, and placed at its- 
disposal.” 

It is a conceded principle in political economy, that human labor is the source of all value. I have n’ot 
lime nor space to go into the reasoning from which this proposition results; but, if it be true, as I have 
no doubt it is, it follows that all the taxes and burdens of society are borne by labor ultimately ; in other ivm'ds^ 
by the icorkingman — he ic ho produces articles of value for use and consumption. 

It is, then, truly the ” toiling millions,” the great bulk of the community, which is composed of farm- 
ers, planters, artisans, mechanics, and laborers, who produce all the wealth of society, and all the means- 
with whicli taxes are paid, and life itself, in all its forms of comfort and luxury, sustained, by those wha 
do not produce. 

If merely raising the amount necessary to meet the expenses of the Government w^ere all the evil whieff 
flov/ed from taxation, it would be, indeed, shorn of much of its oppression upon the masses. But that' 
is a trifle, a mere drop in the bucket, in comparison with the actual burdens which, taxation, in any of its- 
forms, imposes upon the people. Taxes are not like the dews drawn up to heaven by the genial heat of 
the sun, again to descend and fertilize the earth — to diffuse their refreshing beneficence in equal and just 
proportions upon its thirsty bosom. Like the dew, they are indeed drawn up by the Government that 
exacts them, in almost infinite atoms; but, not like the dew, they go to benefit in greater proportion the 
few, and in less proportion the many, from whom they are chiefly exacted. 

Again, as we have seen, the people are injured by the process of exaction — by the means used to lajr 
and collect taxes, and particularly taxes in the form of imposts. They not only pay all which the 
Government exacts of them, but they also, as we have seen, pay four or five times as much more, which 
goes into the pockets of the classes favored by a tariff, in the form of bounties. 

The General Government, in round numbers, exacts from the people, annually, the sum of $25,000,00® 
for its own use. In order to get that sum into thfe treasury, it incidentally compels the people to pay at 
least $100,000,000 in the shape of bounty to the protected classes. These two sums amount to 
$125,000,000. All the State, county, and town taxes, rents, (for rents are but taxes on labor in another 
form,) church and poor rates, and highway taxes, amount, in all the States, to $75,000,000. (As thia 
amount rests upon estimate, it may be too large.) 

Here, then, is the vast sum of TWO HUNDRED MILLIONS, exacted yearly in this country FROM 
LABOR. It is taken from the many, and transferred to ilxe few, through the process of taxation, bounty y 
and expenditure. Is it to be wondered at, that even in this country, the laboring millions find it difficult,, 
with the most persevering industry and economy, to keep even with the world ? 

But, if it is hard for the working millions of America to bear the enormous burdens which rest upon' 
them, in the shape of taxes, bounties, and other forms of exaction, how much more difficult is it for the 
people of England to bear up under the immensely greater load of taxation imposed upon them ? I will 
take a brief view of their immensity and enormity, as illustrative of the blighting effects of taxation upon 
the interests of the masses of the people of that country : 

Customs duties, (year 1842) . - . - - 

Excise duties - - - - 

Stamp duties 

Land and assessed taxes . . . _ . 

Post Office -------- 

Tax on pensions, &c. ------ 

Poor rates -------- 

Tithes to the church 
County rates 

Annual rents of the Kingdom ----- 


Add, for bounty to corn growers and othor protected interests 


£23,515,374 

14,602,841 

7,276,330. 

4,715,353 

1,495,540 

.543,118 

9,685,000. 

9,500,000 

539,r>10. 

30,000,000 


£101,873,132 

25,000,000. 


£126,873,132 


Thus are the people of England, in order to sustain their monarchy, aristocracy, church establishment, 
army, navy, and all the grand machinery of their splendid system of government, taxed annually, in onor 


20 


form and another, to the enormous amount of <£126,000,000, or more tlian six hundred millions of dollars . 
Is it a matter of wonder, that the masses of the people of England are crushed to the very earth under ^ 
this astounding and cruel load of taxation^ 

It is by such rapacious and merciless exactions that the enshackled, monarchy-ridden populations of 
Europe are impoverished, degraded, and enslaved. It is by these ponderous, unbearable, and inexorable 
burdens, that they are crushed to the earth, and kept there, beyond the possibility of recovering, and re- 
lieving their miserable and hopeless condition. _ • i • 

It is the SOCIAL and political systems — the august forms of monarchy and aristocracy, with their 
ponderous, imposing, and costly machinery of government — forms and substances which the pure federa- 
lists of this country desire to see instituted and established here — which reduce to beggary and vassalage 
the working millions of Europe, causing to thousands ujoon thousands of individuals and families untold 
anguish and countless misery.' 

It is through the process of taxation, and its unfailing consequent expenditure, that all this atrocious 
mischief is perpetrated — all this incalculable misery of the poor and humble laborer is inflicted. 

Therefore, how important is it that the American workingman should take counsel from the example 
of the governments of monarchical Europe, and the oppression and suffering of his fellow-workingmen 
in those king-ridden, aristocracy-ridden, and church-ridden countries, and resist with all his energies the 
causes which lead to such results. He should not only resist taxation in all its forms, whether by im- 
post duties or otherAvise, but the causes which lead to it. 

He should bear in mind that every officer of the ciA'il list, CA^ery sailor, every soldier, every other per- 
son maintained by the Government must be supported by his labor. He should remember that the strength 
of his sineAv^s, and the SAveat of his broAv, coin the money Avdiich pays every clerk of the civil government ; 
every officer, soldier, and sailor, in the army and navy. And, Avith the omnipotent ballot in his hand, 
the proud insignia of his citizenship, he should stand manfully up, and demand of those whom he 
chooses to be his rulers, an economical government — a government with simple machinery, few offi- 
cers, and loAv salaries. And he should also demand REFORM — full, thorough, and radical reform, in 
those aristocratic excrescences of the government, the army, and navy. He should insist that their num- 
ber should be reduced to the number required only for actual service. He should never forget that 
nearly all the officers of both those branches of public service are federal in their politics, aristocratic in 
their feelings, and hostile to a truly republican government; and are in favor of profuse expenditure, be- 
cause they reap” the benefit. 

The power of taxation reaches and affects all. By this power the Government embraces every hu- 
man being in the territory over Avhich it extends. It is by this jjower that it shapes the destinies of the 
masses, as Avell as of the few. It exacts from the many their substance. It deprives them of their com- 
forts and means of improvement, and thus it retards their march in the oiiAvard progress of civilization. 
Through the processes of expenditure, and by the bounties of government taken from the masses through 
the agency of legislation Avhich it confers upon the feAv, it builds up and sustains its privileged classes. 
They unite on the side of poAver against the people. And thus is the great problem of free govern- 
ment INVOLVED IN THE QUESTIONS OF TAXATION AND EXPENDITURE. 

Although not intimately connected Avith the topics discussed in this number, I propose, in conclusion, 
to contrast the duties imposed by the American and British tariffs upon certain leading commodities of 
the same kind. 


AMERICAN TARIFF. 

..Articles. 

Cotton manufactures (under the 
minimuins - - - - ad 

Hardw'aro and cutlery 
Manufactures of brass, copper, pew- 
ter, and tin _ . . 

Glass (flint and out) 

Woollen manufactures 
Coal - - - 

Iron, pig 
‘‘ bar 

Steel (un wrought) - 
Lead (in sheets) 

Silk manufactures 
Linen do 


per cent. 

valorem, 30 to 162 
“ 30 


« 30 

25 to 88 
« 40 

per ton 75 

“ 9 00 

“ 22 .50 

“ 30 00 

“ 89 60 

ad valorem, 25 to 43 per cent 
“ 25 “ 


• ^9rticlc$ 

Cotton (made up) - 


BRITISH TARIFF. 

per cent. 

- ad valorem 20 


< not made up) 

Hardware and cutlery 
Manufactures of brass, copper, pew 
ter, and tin 
Glass (flint and cut) 

Woollens (made up) 

‘‘ (not made up) 

Coal - . - - 

Iron, pig - 

“ bar . - . 

Steel (untvrought) - 
Lead (in sheets) 

Silk manufactures - 
Linen do 


per ton 


ad valorem 25 to 30 
“ 1 15 


10 

15 

15 

30 

20 

15 

24 cents. 
$1 20 
4 80 

15 per cent 
4 80 “ 

« 


I might add many more articles to the lists above, all showing the same disparity of ^uty ; but it is un- 

y all the different 
as 25 and 30 per 


necessary. The “ protecting duties” (as they are called by British Avriters) on near 
kinds of manufactured articles, range from 5 to 20 per cent. ; A'ery feAv go up as high 
cent. The corn duty — Avhich is a specific sliding duty, varying in amount as the imperial average price 
rises or falls — Avhen highest, is but about 40 per cent. This is also a protecting duty.l The British du- 
ties on tobacco and sugar are A^ery much higher, but they are revenue duties merely; tllere being none of 
these articles raised in the Kingdom. \ 

Noav it is Avell knoAvn that British ingenuity has been taxed to the utmost to discover the rate of duty 
tvhich Avill produce most revenue; and on most articles in the British tariff, the duties ar^ fixed at from 5 
to 30 per cent ; thus showing that, if they go up to higher rates, the)” defeat reA^enue, by prohibiting im- 
portation, or encouraging smuggling. From 15 to 20 per cent, may, therefore, be deemed the average 
revenue standard of duty. 

The average rates of duties under the American tariff range far above that standard. Consequently, 
they must encourage smuggling, prohibit importations, and defeat revenue. If those rates are continued 
they will, in all probability, so far prohibit importation, as to prevent the Government from deriving any 
thing like an adequate supply of revenue from that source, and to compel it to resort to direct taxa- 


21 


tion; a result contemplated as one 
speech delivered in 1820 ; with an 


of the fruits of the protective system, by Mr. Clay, as appears by his 
extract from which, 1 close my present number. 


« From the Life arid Speeches of Henry Clay, puUisheiby^ Tribune, volume 1, pages 

conshz^tlv^ucli/at^n^^^ of Government resting solely upon the precarious resources of such a revenue ? 7t ts 

driven bv its sudden and enormous amount, at ong time into extravagant expenditure ; and we are then, 

into expenses which we mi , into the opposite extreme. We are seduced, by its flattering promises, 

ou^ht to make tt i« a sum’ avoid ; and we are afterwards constrained, by its treachery, to avoid expenses which we 
the interest nf the ™ which there is a sort of perpetual tear between the interest of tlie Government and 

imuortations coffers of Government, and empty the pocketsof the people. Small 

tieace it is iin«te>iHv people, and leave the treasury empty. In war, the revenue disappears ; in 

shall h-ivp «hr>riiv to o ^ System the Government will not be able much longer to rely. We all anticipate that we 

TNTFRX A T rpVttivitc'*^*^ some additional supply of revenue within ourselves. I was opposed to the total repeal of the 
pTi< 5 t AnU 1 . ^ e ^GE. I would have preserved certain parts of it, at least, to be ready for emergencies such as now 
finnn cxclude foreign spirits altogether, and substitute for the revenue levied on them a tax 

\ipOil InG spirits PflflOG Wllllin tine TVIrx rvf Vi •« -iv..,!.- .- 


imnn th/i csr^i^ltc -A . T'*: , auu duu:-hiuic lur llir. revenue levieu UH iiicm a lax 

up n me .pints made within this country. No other nation lets in so much of foreign spirits as we do. By the encoura<»e- 
K, you will LAY A BASIS OF INTERN .dL TAXATION, when it gets strong, that will be steady and 

€ in ‘D(*CfTP ft'tni. tnriT VV/i Hn rtnf /lAritrA^ /mw oKti:«;ctci ♦pv . au^a 


A OA.CIS ur IL^ IJLIIVUI .'lU 1 /A A/A J H OX , Wlieil U gClS S UOllg, 11131 Wll 1 ue STEADY and 
in peace and war. We do not derive our abilities abroad to pay taxes ; that depends upon our 
wealth and industry ; and it is the same, WHATEVER MAY BE THE FORM of levying contributions.” 


In my next mimber I shall have sometliing to say of the cost of manufactures in England and in this 
€Ountiy, the wages of labor in the two countries and other matters connected with those subjects; and 
in a future number I shall examine and explode the whig absurdity embodied in the following maxim, 
VIZ : “ the higher the duty the lower the price BUNDELCUND. 


No. 8. The Federalists vote for the most extravagant expenditure, because it creates the necessity for taxation 
and a high tariff — They favor the internal improvement system, distribution, and assumption of the State debt, 
for the same reason — The toages of labor and the hours of labor in this country and England compared — Jllso 
the cost of manufacture in this country and England — The American cotton manufacturer produces some 
descriptions of fabrics al a cheaper rate than the English, and undersells the latter in foreign markets- 

Before proceeding to the main subjects which I propose to discuss in this number, I shall devote a few 
moments to one or two miscellaneous matters, connected with topics which I have heretofore considered. 

In my last comniunication, I endeavored to impress upon the American workingman the evils and op- 
pressions of taxation in all its forms, and particularly in the form of the impost system — in other words, 
tlie tarift system. And I took it upon me to advise him to watch closely the expenditures of the public 
revenues raised by taxation, and to demand' of those whom he might select for his rulers, an economical 
disbursement of the public moneys. 

I will now point liim, as I do all others, to the conduct of the two great parties in this country — the 
Democratic and Federal — in reference to this very matter of expenditure. 

The Democratic party, from the foundation of the Government, have always been in favor of a cheap, 
plain, and frugal government — xvith a view, first, to preserve those simple habits and modes of life 
among the people, which are necessary to the maintenance of a republican government ; and, secondly, 
to relieve the people from all unnecessary burdens. Hence they oppose all unnecessary expenditures 
©f the public money. And for 'this reason, also, have they always opposed a permanent funded na- 
tional debt ; and now oppose the internal impr oi^ement system, distribution of the proceed of the sales 
of the public lands, and an assumption of the State debts. From tlie earliest period in the history oft 
our National Government until the present time, the records of Congress will show that the grea 
body of the Democratic members have invariably voted against profuse and extravagant expenditures of 
the public money. 

But not so with the Federal party. I call our opponents Federalists, because I do not like to counte- 
nance the political fraud (I might say theft) which they have committed, in assuming and disgracing 
the once honored name of Whig. From the foundation of the Government, that party have been the 
constant advocate.s of profuse and lavish expenditures. The records of Congress will show tliat the 
great body of the Federal members uniformly vote for every expenditure, wliether necessary, just, and 
expedient, or not. 

Why is this persevering effort on the part of the Federal party to throw away the public money — 
thus creating the necessity of taxing the people ? At the present time, their iifimediate motive is to continue 
the necessity of high duties — in other words, to keep up the protective system ; and hence are they in favor 
of extravagant appropriations for internal improvements. Hence, also, are they in favor of the distri- 
bution of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands — a national debt, the annual interest of which 
must be paid by taxation upon tlie people ; and hence some of them are in favor of tlie assumption of 
the State debts. To keep up the necessity of a high tariff, is the approximate motive of the Federal party. 

But they have another, more distant, and, with them, very potent motive. It is the lingering spirit of 
monarchy — a hankering after the august and imposing displays of regal pomp and aristocratic splendor, 
which still lurks in the hearts of the leaders of that party, misleadihg their judgments, and seducing their 
patriotism, by its fascinating but deceptive illusions. 

Taxation and expenditure will impoverish, degrade, and enslave the masses, while they build up and 
strengthen the privileged classes of society. 

A funded national debt is another link in the chain of popular degradation and aristocratic aggrandize- 
ment. The larger it is, the more must be exacted from the labor of the people to pay the interest, and 
the more numerous will be the privileged recipients of that interest — the capitalists. 

Stock in a national debt would be worth but little, if the government which owed it was not firm and 
stable in its power, and abundant in its resources. Therefore, the fundholders of the debt rally around 
he government, and strengthen it against the masses of the people, who are to be pillaged by both. It is 


22 


a maxim with Tories and pure Federalists, that “a national debt is a national blessing that it makes a 
strong government; and hence are the Federal party in its favor. 

As an illustration in point, I refer to the funded national debt created by the Federalists during the 
brief but disgraceful reign of that party in 1841 and 1842. Instead of continuing the wise and economi- 
cal expedient of issuing treasury notes, which would have enabled the Government to appropriate the 
millions of surjilus revenue which it now has, to their redemption, they created a funded national debt, 
most of which is not redeemable before 1862 ; *and thus they compel the people to pay interest on about 
17,000,000, while the people lose the interest on $8,000,000 surplus money in the treasury, which the 
anks now use' for their benefit. Thus do the people hjee every year nearly $2,000,000 in consequence 
of this stupid and wicked financiering of Federalism. Is it to be wondered at that the Federal party is 
in disgrace with the people ? 

In my last number I remarked, that the duties under the present tariff were so high upon many arti- 
cles, as to defeat revenue, by prohibiting their importation, or by encouraging smugglers to introduce 
them into the country in violation of the revenue laws. I have iSefore me proof of the fact in relation 
to one article at least, which I find in a late money article of the New York Morning News, the writer 
of which is among the ablest and most profound political economists in the country. The article I refer 
to is cotton yarn, the average ad-valorem duty on which is 45 per cent. It appears by the returns of the 
British custom-house, that, during the last year, 467,764 pounds w^ere entered for export to the United 
States. By the tables of commei-ce and navigation published by our Government, for the same year, it 
appears that only 91,022 pounds were entered at our custom-house; thus showing that 376,742, or more 
than three-fourths, were smuggled into the country. 

I will now proceed to the main purpose of this communication, which was to institute a comparison 
between the wages of labor in this country and in England ; more particularly in reference to those paid to 
the operatives employed in the business of manufacturing in the two countries. 

We are constantly appealed to by the advocates of the present tariff, to continue it as it is, because it is 
necessary to protect the American manufacturer and operative from the effects of competition with the 
pauper labor of England. The idea is perseveringly impressed upon the American mind, that the British 
operative works for little or nothing, and that the American manufiicturer cannot compete with the British,, 
unless he is protected against the pauper labor employed by his rival; he having to pay a very much 
higher rate of wages to the operative in his employment. 

When we reflect upon the numerous fraudulent, cheating, and mendacious devices resorted to by the 
framers of the present tariff, to deceive the people in relation to the amount of duties which they paw 
under it, we ought not to be surprised at the perseverance with which they cling to this falsehood, which 
they have fabricated, in relation to the wages paid to the British operative. 

Mio, the fact is, that there is but very little difference in the wages paid to the British operative an^ 
those paid to the American. They differ but little in nominal amount ; and, when we take into consid- 
eration the fact, that the American operative toils more hours, and produces more cloth, yarn, or what- 
ever it may be, than the British, the balance will incline in favor of the British operative, and against the 
American — against the British manufacturer, and in favor of the American. 

I will now refer to facts to sustain my assertions. The following are the rates of wages per week paid 
to the operatives in the Lancashire cotton factories in England, as dra-^vn up by the chamber of com- 
merce at Manchester, and are nearly an average for the whole kingdom, viz : 



Sterling 

Equivalent in 




Sterling 

Equivalent in 

Occupations. 

currency. 

federal money. 

Occupations. 



currency. 

federal money. 


s. d. s. d. 





s. 

d. s. d. 



Spinners— men, 

20 to 25 

$'4 80 to 

«6 00 

Weavers by power — 





Do women. 

10 to 15 

2 40 to 

3 60 

Dressers, men. 


28 

to 30 

StG 72 to .f7 20 

Stretchers, 

25 to 26 

6 00 to 

6 24 

Winders and warpers. 

8 

to 11 

1 92 to 

2 64 

Piercers, (boys and girls,) 4 7 to 7 

1 10 to 

1 68 

Mechanics, 


24 

to 26 

5 76 to 

6 24 

In the card room — 




Promiscuous occupations— 




Men, 

14 6 to 17 

3 48 to 

4 08 

Machine makers- 

—men. 

26 

to 30 

6 24 to 

7 20 

Young women. 

9 to 9 6 

2 16 to 

2 28 

Iron founders. 

do 

28 

to 30 

6 72 to 

7 20 

Children, 

6 to 7 

1 44 to 

1 68 

Tailors, 

do 

18 

to 20 

4 32 to 

4 80 

Throstle-spinners, 

5 to 9 6 

1 20 to 

2 28 

Shoemakers, 

do 

15 

to 18 

3 60 to 

4 32 

Keelers, 

7 to . 9 

1 68 to 

2 16 

Whitesmiths, 

do 

22 

to 24 

5 28 to 

5 76 

Weavers by power — 




Sawyers, 

do 

24 

to 28 

5 76 to 

6 72 

Men, 

13 to 16 10 

3 12 to 

4 06 

Carpenters, 

do 

20 

to 25 

4 80 to 

6 00 

Women, 

8 to 12 

1 92 to 

2 76 

Bricklayers, 

do 

17 

to 20 

4 08 to 

4 80 


In Sheffield, the great seat of the manufacture of cutlery, wages vary from 25s. ($6) to 35.?. ($8.40) 
per week ; and workmen in the skilled departments get 40s. ($9.60) per week. The authority on which 
I rely in the statement of wages which I have given above, is Symon’s Arts and Artisans, pp. 2 and 3. 
See, also, Wade’s History of the Middle and Working Classes, pp. 570-4 ; and Ure’s Philosophy of 
Manufactures, p. 476. 

So far, I have cited British authors only. I will now refer to a few American authorities, and to one 
which will be deemed reliable by the friends of the protective system. In a document sent to the Senate 
on the 12th day of January, 1842, by the Hon. Daniel Webster, then Secretary of State, communicat- 
ing certain consular returns, I find a full statement of wages paid to operatives and artisans in Glaso-ow, 
Scotland ; a few of which I extract, in order to show their general concurrence with the rates given from 
the British authors to whose works I have referred. 

Occupations. Sterling currency. 

Bootmakers, s. 16 to 21 

Bookbinders, 20 to 24 

Chain and anchor makers, ^ to 30 

Hatters, 35 to 45 

Tailors, 15 to 20 


Federal mnnev. 
$■3 84 to .$5 04 
4 80 to 5 76 
6 00 to 7 20 
8 40 to 10 80 
3 60 to 4 80 


Occupations. 

Bricklayers, 

Cotton spinners. 
Power loom weavers, 
Carpet weavers, 


Sterling currency, 
s. 20 to 23 
16 to 24 
7 to 9 
15 to 16 6 


Federal money. 
$4 80 to ^5 52 
3 84 to 5 76 
1 68 to 2 16 
3 60 to 3 96 


23 


In the consular returns communicated to the House of Representatives by Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of 
State, March 3, 1845, the following rates of wages are given for London, viz : 


Beaver lialmakers, $5 76 to $7 20 average per week. 
Boot and shoemakers, 4 80 to 7 20 “ 

Silk weavers, plain work, 2 88 to 4 32 “ “ 

“ “ fancy work, 3 60 to 5 04 “ “ 

Bricklayers, 96 to 1 20 <•' per dav. 

Millwrights & machinists, 1 20 to 1 68 “ 


Masons, 

Shipwrights, 

Smiths, 

Weavers and dyers 
Tailors, 


S'l 20 to $1 32 average per day. 

1 20 to 1 44 “ “ 

1 44 « « 

72 to 2 40 “ “ 

12 “ per hour. 


This will suffice for the rates of wages in England. 

We hear much of the distress and suffering of the manufacturing classes in England. They are never 
distressed, except when they ai’e thrown out of employment by great commercial revulsions. Then, 
from their numbers, and their want of means, they suffer immensely. In a few generations we shall 
witness the same scenes of distress and suffering in the large manufacturing communities of this country; 
but not so long as the oppressed workingman has cheap neio land to flee to, on which he can plant him- 
self and become independent — which land the Government should make still cheaper. A luxurious 
growth of men and women — of independent freemen — is far more valuable to the State than a paltry 
revenue, gleaned from the sale of its domains. ' But* to return. 

In this country the data in relation to tl^de facts are not so full and copious as in England ; yet I have 
some whig authority to show the amount paid to the o]teratives in the United States. I have before me 
an exti-act from a letter written by the Hon. Robert C. Winthrop, member of Congress from Boston, 
dated August 8, 1844, in which he gives the following as the “nett wages paid to girls, after paying their 
Board,” (^1 25,) in the following factories in New Hampshire, to wit: 


Jackson Company, May, 1844 
Nassau “ “ 


Amoskeag “ 
Stark Mills “ 


$1 80 per week. 

1 83 

2 03 “ 

1 85 “ 


This letter of Mr. Winthrop was written for electioneering purposes, and therefore, it is to be pre- 
sumed, he made out as fair a case for the factory proprietors as the truth would warrant. 

I have, from another and more authentic source — the returns of the factories themselves — the average 
wages per week paid to the operatives at Lowell during the years 1833 and 1844, which are as follows, viz: 

1833. 1844. Decrease. 

Wages of females - - - - ^2 00 $1 "75 25 cts. 

“ males - - - - 7 50 6 70 80 “ 

The wages of the females are clear of board. The males board themselves. Deducting the price 
charged in Lowell for the boarding men, ($1 75,) and their wages per week would be $4 95. 

In making a comparison between the wages paid to factory operatives in this country and England, 
other circumstances are also to be taken into consideration. In England the operatives are required to 
work but 69 hours each week. At Lowell they are required to work 74 hours; and at Manchester, N. 
H., 705 hours, as appears by the following table: 


HOURS OF 

LABOR 

AT 

LOWELL. 


HOURS 

OF LABOR 

at MANCHESTER. 

In January 

- 

11 

hours 

24 minutes. 

In January 

- 

. 11 

hours 

30 minutes. 

In February 

- 

12 

a 



In February 

- 

12 



In March 


11 

6C 

52 


In March 

- 

12 

£6 


In April 

- 

13 

ii 

31 

CC 

In April 

- 

13 


30 “ 

In May 

- 

12 

a 

65 

(( 

In May 

- 

13 

££ 


In June 

- 

12 

u 

45 

u 

In June 

- 

13 

J££ 


In July 

- 

12 

iC 

45 

(( 

In July 

. - 

13 

££ 


In August 

- 

12 

(C 

45 

C£ 

In August 

. 

13 

££ 


In September - 

- 

12 

cc 

43 

C£ 

In September 

- 

13 

££ 


In October 

- 

12 

(( 

16 

c: 

In October 

- 

13 

££ 


In November - 

_ 

11 

(6 

46 

cc 

In November 

- 

13 

££ 


In December - 

- 

11 

6( 

24 

£< 

In December 

-■ 

13 

££ 



In this country the female operatives tend more looms than the same class of operatives do in England. 
Those two considerations, viz., the greater number of the hours of labor and tending more looms, niuch 
more than counterbalance the nominal difference in the rates of wages in the two countries, -which is not 
more than 10 per cent. 

Thus it appears that cheapness oflabcrr is actually on the side of the ..American manufacturer. 

I have been copious in my facts touching this point, because I desired to put at re.st forever the false- 
hood that the wages of labor are much, if any lower in England than in this country; and that a high 
prohibitory tariff is necessary, in order to protect the American manufacturer against his rival in 
England — in the catch-phrase of the day, the “pauper” labor of Europe. 

I shall now proceed to show that the Amencan manufacturer can produce all the coarser descriptions of 
fabrics cheaper than the British manufacturer can produce them, and that the former does undersell the latter in 
the markets of the world. 

The advantages w'hich the American manufacturer has over his British rival are as follows, viz : 

1. In freis-ht^ — It costs the British manufacturer, as appears by Hunt’s Magazine, October, 1845, about 
one cent per pound for freight upon his cotton from New Orleans or Mobile to Liverpool; while it costs 
the American manufacturer less than half a cent for freight from New Orleans or Mobile to New York 
or Boston. This is equal to 6 per cent, on the raw material in favor of the American manufacturer. 
Supposing the cotton to be worth eight cents per pound, on the 400,000 bales consumed by the American 
manufacturers, they save at least $800,000 in freight, which their British rivals have to pay. 

2. The American manufacturer generally buys his cotton immediately from the producer, and thus 
iaves a commission to the cotton importer, which the British manufacturer is compelled to pay, and 


24 


which is equal to 5 per cent. more. Thus, on the item of cotton alone, the American manufacturer saves 
at least 11 per cent,, which his British rival is obliged to pay. 

3. In the cost of flour, used in bleaching and sizing. The American cotton manufacturers use about 

30,000 barrels of flour per annum, in bleaching and sizing. In consequence of die high duties on flour, 
the same quantity would cost the British manufacturer about $3 more per barrel than it costs the Amer- 
ican manufacturer. Here is another item of $90,000 in favor of the latter on that quantity of flour. 

4. In the greater cheapness of water-power used by the American maiiufacturer, as compared with 

steam, used by his British rival. • _ 

5. The American manufacturer has not yet been troubled so much with combinations and turn-outs 
among the operatives as the British manuflxeturer has been. 

6. In the greater cheapness of provisions in this country, as compared with their prices in England. 
To s}k)w the advantage which the American manufacturer has over his British rival in this particular, I 
again copy from Symon’s Arts and Artisans, page 70: 


Articles of provisions. 

, Price. 

Fed’l money 

Articles of provisions. 

Price. 

Fed’l money. 

Bread, 26 pounds weight 

5 shillings 

$1 20 

Sugar, per pound 

8 p"nce 

16 

Bacon, per pound 

9 pence 

18 

Butter, “ 

Is. 2d. 

28 

Potatoes, per bushel - 
Tea or coffee, per pound 

2 shillings 

5 shillings 

48 • 
1 20 

Cheese, “ 

• 

t 

- 9 pence 

18 


Under this head may also be classed the greater cheapness of fuel, oil, and candles. 

7. The heavy taxation to which the British manufacturer is subject, and from which the American is 
exempt. In addition to the heavy taxes on his buildings, fixtures, &c., the British manufacturer is 
obliged to pay a stamp-tax on every bill, receipt, promissory note, and other paper which he may give 
in the transaction of his business. 

All these circumstances operate greatly in favor of the American manufacturer, and give him great 
advantage over his British rival, enabling him, beyond all question, to produce his fabrics at a much less 
cost than the British manufacturer can possibly produce his. 

I have before me the estimate of an American manufacturer, (a Mr. Kempton,) furnished a few years 
since to the committee of the British Parliament appointed to investigate the factory system of that 
country, (for which see Factory Commission Report, Part 1 — Evidence by Central Board, pages 23, 24,) 
showing conclusively that the American manufacturer can produce his fabrics at a cheaper rate than the 
British. It follows : 






United States. 

England. 

Intere.st on dressing machine 

- 

- 

- 

£■2 11s. 

£1 12s. 

Interest on 12 power looms 

- 

- 

- 

8 6 

4 10 

Cost per annum of one-horse power 

- 

- 

- 

4 10 

12 10 

Cost of dressing 3,736 pieces 

- 

- 

- 

23 9 

46 18 

Cost of weaving - - - 




125 4 

£163 00 

156 10 

£222 00 


Cost of manufacturing in America per piece ----- lO^d. 

‘‘ “ “ England per piece - - - - - Is. 2id. 

I will now show, by extracts from letters written by Englishmen, residing at diflerent places abroad, 
which I copy from Dr. Ure’s History of the Cotton Manufacture of Great Britain, that, even so far back 
as 1834, the American manufacturer successfully competed with the British manufacturer in the markets 
of the world. 

Mr. George Wilson, of Rio Janeiro, writes: “We fear that we shall be under the necessity of reship- 
ping to Rio all the domestics we brought down with us, as the market of Port Allegre is completely 
overdrawn by the Americans in this article.” 

Mr. W. P. Paton reports that there were in the Manilla market “ 35,240 pieces of 36 inches wide, and 

7.000 pieces of 28 inches wide, gray, of American manufacture; while of the British manufacture, for 
tlie same period, there were only 1,832 pieces.” 

Mr. Gibson, of Aux Cayes, writes, in 1834, “That, in the unbleached domestics, a class of goods of 
great importance, the Americans were cutting out the British.” 

Mr. John Heugh, of Malta, writes: “That the Americans had, in a great measure, driven the British 
article (cotton domestics) from the market.” 

Mr. Atkinson, of Smyrna, writes: '“Domestics are a very current article of consumption, but almost 

20.000 pieces have arrived, principally from America.” 

Thus ten years ago the American manufacturer was a successful rival of the British in the markets of 
the world, in the article of domestic cottons. And at the present moment he is still more so. He under- 
sells his British competitor in all the markets of Asia as well as of South America. The fabrics of the 
Stark Mills in Manchester, N. H., have even been exported to England, and sold at a lower rate than 
the British manufacturer could sell the same article of like quality for at his own door. 

The fact is, the American manufacturer can produce his fabrics cheaper than they can he produced in 
any other portion of the world. And I have it from the best authority — a leading manufacturer of New 
England — that the American woollen manufacturer produces a better article of cloth, and at a cheaper 
rate, than the British, except in the item of dressing and finishing, in which the latter excels the former. 

To sustain the assertion, that the American manufacturer can successfully compete with his British 
rival in the markets of the world, I have the best possible whig authority, it being no less than the editor 
of the New York Tribune. He says : 

“ Two or three of the Lowell companies which made good dividends last year, earned them altogether by manufacturing 
for foreign markets, where their products came in direct competition with the cheap fabrics of England.— ^ug. 14 

How idle, then, is it to talk of the necessity of a prohibitory tariff to protect a class of men who a.r& 
able to compete with the whole world in their peculiar business And should such men be favored witjf 
“protection,” which enables them to monopolize the home market, and thus to compel their countrym^ 


to pay for the same article of manufacture 100 per cent, more than the people of England pay, 'while they 
sell the same to foreigners for a little more than one-half of what they charge their own countrymen ? 

Are laws which favor such practices founded upon the great and unchanging princij iles of truth, justice, 
and equity? And is such legislation to be tolerated in a republican Government, which repudiates the 
idea of favored classes and exclusive privileges? Let the American people respond. 

In my next number I shall show who are the protected classes in this country, and shall also explain 
the principles which affect prices, and show the falsehood and nonsense of the assumption that high 
duties cause low prices. BUNDELCUND. 


J^lo, 9. — Fhe protected classes in this country. — Mr. Webster's late unfounded assertion in Faneuil Hall. — The 
tariff affords no protection to the operative, nor to certain cla.sses engaged in mechanical purs^lits. — The ab- 
surdity and nonsense of the federal Whig doctrine, that “ the higher the duty, the lower the price," shoicn up . — 
explanation of the catises of the fall of prices to be found mainly in the fall of the raw material, and in the 
great improvement in machinery, thus increasing the ratio of supply to demand ; and in the comlition of the 
cwrency. — Illustrations from the expenence of the United States and Ch'eat Britain. 

The Hon. Daniel Webster, in his late British speech in Faneuil Hall, gave utterance to the following- 
statement, viz : 

“ We h.ave been referred by the liOcofoco party to the great manufacturing towns of Lowell and Springfield, and Dover j 
but he would remark, lhatrf the tariff be destroyed, those places and the rich manufacturers w’ould not suffer the most. 
It was the shop manufacturers, the makers of boots, and hats, and clothes, &c., wdio would suffer; and if the tariff should 
be destroyed, not one of those who now hved by their labor ou the bench, or at the anvil, could exist a twelvemonth.” 


I will now proceed to show that the statement above, put forth recently in Faneuil Hall, by Daniel 
Webster, Q.ueen Victoria’s political attorney in the United States, is not only baseless in its assertions, 
but wholly unfounded in its facts. 

The impression which Mr. Webster seeks to make upon his audience is, that the bootmaker, hatter, 
&c. derive protection from the present tariff' ; without which, the British attorney adds, “ they could not 
exist a txvelvemonth.” 


Since 
ports as 
in value 
follows, 


reading Mr. Webster’s assertion, I have taken pains to examine the tables of imports and ex- 
far back as 1840 inclusive, in order to see how much in value of boots and shoes, and how much 
of hats, have been imported into, and exported from, this country ; and I find the re.sult as& 
viz: 


Boots and shoes. Hats and leather caps. 


Years. 

1840 

1841 

1842 

1843-* - 

1844 

• • 

Imported. 

- $71, .533 

- 49,902 

- 51,304 

. 8,094 

- 27,482 

Exported. 

$214,360 

193,583 

168,925 

115,355 

204,000 

Imported. 

$7,429 

17,196 

20,803 

6,574 

26,882t 

Exported- 

$103,398 

100,725 

65,882 

39,843 

75,649 



208,315 

896,223 

208,315 

78,884 

385,497 

78,884 

Excess of exports over imports 

$687,908 


$305,613 


* For three-quarters of the year. f Including hats, caps, and muffs. 


How, here are the results of the protection which the boot and shoemakers, and hatters, derive from 
the tariff. For the last four years and three-quarters, the exports of boots, shoes, and hats, have ex- 
ceeded the imports by several hundred thousand dollars ; thus proving that, in relation to those articles, 
the supply exceeds the demand. Consequently, the shoemakers and hatters are obliged to seek a foreign 
market for the surplus of their productions, beyond the consumption of this country; therefore, the 
tariff affords them not the least protection. The duties on boots, shoes, and hats, are mere humbug du- 
ties, as are the duties on potatoes, wheat, Indian corn, cotton, &c., &c. 

It is thus all of those intelligent classes of mechanics view the matter. During the last summer, the 
boot and shoemakers of New York city held a large meeting, to take into consideration the interests of 
tlieir particular business, at which they adopted a long preamble and series of resolutions, setting forth, 
as one of the prominent causes of the depression of their business, the tariff of 1842 ; which, they alleged, 
increased the prices not only of the stock which they manufactured, but also nearly every article which 
they consumed for food or clothing. I have before me that preamble and the resolutions accompanying* 
I copy the closing words of the preamble, with the first resolution, which are as follows : 


“ Of all the fallacies of the day, we consider the promised protection of the mechanics of the United States, under the 
present tariff, the greatest- At all events, the shoemakers have had enough of it. We ask that it may no longer be afforded. 
^ “ Be it therefore resolved, That the present tariff is a burdensome tax upon the industry of the country, and particularly 
upon tliat branch of industry in which we are engaged.’^ 


About the same time, the shoemakers of Lynn, Massachusetts, under the immediate eye of Mr. Web- 
ster, held a meeting, and adopted an address, which I have before me, in which they complain of low 
wages and depressed business, and call upon their fellow-shoemakers to combine and refuse to labor, 
and thus raise prices by stopping the supply. This w'as nearly two years after the present tariff was^ 
enacted ; yet it had afforded no relief to the shoemakers, nor has it to this day. The shoe business in 
New England is at this very moment greatly depressed ; and the main reason of it is, that they produce 
a greater supply than the consumption of the country requires, and are unable to sell their surplus pro- 
ductions at a remunerating profit in foreign countries, in consequence of the prohibitory duties wdiich our 
tariff imposes upon the productions of foreign countries, for which shoes and boots would be exchanged, 
and which cannot be brought into this country without serious loss. How absurd and baseless, then, i.s- 
the assertion of Mr. Webster, that the shoemakers could not exist a twelvemonth without the aid of the 
present tariff! And equally absurd is it 'to make such an assertion in reference to the hatters, tailors,, 
blacksmiths, and other mechanics. 


26 


The tariff imposes burdens on those valuable classes of citizens in various ways. In the first place, it 
taxes almost every article which they or their families eat, drink, or wear. Duties increase the prices of the 
Articles on which they are laid ; and, consequently, more labor is required to purchase them. This, of 
course, depreciates the nett income of the masses of mechanics. 

Secondly, the duty on the raw material which they manufacture — the leather, iron, cloth, furs, &c. — 
increases the prices of those articles, and compels the shoemaker, hatter, blacksmith, &c., to employ more 
capital — more money in his business — and, consequently, he loses more interest on the capital thus em- 
ployed. This, to a man of small means, causes embarrassment, and sometimes failure. 

Would it not be better for the blacksmith in the country village to get his iron ^30 per ton cheaper 
than he now gets it? And would it not be better for the bootmaker of the city to be able to get his French 
calf-skins at |5 per dozen less than he now pays, in consequence of the duty — his sole-leather 25 pter cent, 
less? And how does the tariff benefit him? By increasing the prices of the stock he works up — thus 
causing him a greater outlay of cash to carry on his business. But I will not pursue this subject. 

A man like Mr. Webster, who aspires to no higher meed oV fame than to be known as the mouthpiece of 
British interests, against the interests of his own country, will hardly stop at any assertion in respect to so 
humble a matter as the interests of the laboring classes of his countrymen. But what must the intelligent 
artisans, who, he says, “cannot exist a twelvemonth” if the present Uxriff is modified or repealed, think 
of this great idol of federalism, Mr. Webster? It is not difficult to imagine. They must pity him for 
his want of intelligence, or they will turn from him in contempt and scorn for his want of veracity, and 
his attempt to deceive them. 

I now pass on to inquire who are the recipients of the bounties exacted from the people, through the 
instrumentality of the tariff. 

The whole number of jxersons employed in trades and manufactures in the United States in 1840 was 
791,545, according to the late census; and of that number, tlie particular occupations of 506,033 are given. 
In speaking of the “protected classes,” it is the custom of the advocates of protection to embrace all the 
persons engaged in the mechanic trades, as well as in manufactures, as belonging to those classes. 

I propose to analyze the 506,083 whose occupations are given in the census tables, in order to see how 
many of these, by the most liberal allowance, can be embraced within the category of “protected classes;” 
ki other words, are benefitted, either immediately or remotely, by the present tariff : 


Persons engaged in manufactures and trades 


Occupations. 

Mining of all kinds, except gold 


ffumber. 

- 33,242 

Coal - - - - 

- 

- 6,811 

Salt - - - - 

- 

- 2,365 

Machinery - - - 

- 

- 13,001 

Hardware --- 

- 

- 5,492 

Fire-arms - - - 

- 

- 1,744 

Precious metals 

- 

- 1,5.56 

Various metals 

- 

- 6,677 

Woollen - - - 

- 

- 21,342 

Cottou _ - _ 

- 

- 72,119 

Silk - - - - 

- 

767 

Flax - - - - 

- 

- 1,628 

Mixed _ - - 

- 

- 15,905 

Tobacco ... 

- 

- 8,384 

and trades supposed 

Persons engaged in manufactures 

not to be protected by the present tariff. 

Occupations. 

Gold mining 


JS'umber. 
- 1,046 

Granite and marble 

- 

- 11,593 

Bricks and lime 

- 

- 22,807 

Mills, &c. - . - 


- 60,788 

Houses , . - 

- 

- 85,501 

Carriages and wagons 

- 

- 21,994 

Household furniture 

- 

- 18,003 


supposed to be protected by Uie present ta}-\ff. 

Occupations. .Nximber. 

Hats, caps, and bonnets - - - - *20,176 

Leather |26,018 

Snap and candles ----- .5,641 

Distilleries ------ 12,^223 

Glares 3,236 

Earthenware - - - - - 1,612 

Sugar refining, chocolate, &c. - - 1,355 

Paper 4,726 

Priming and binding - - - - li,.523 

Powder 495 

Drugs, &c. ------ 1,848 • 

Cordage ------ 4,464 

284,351 


* One-half at least of this class are engaged in the man- 
ufacture of hats, which, as I have before shown, receive 
no protection under the present tariff. 

j Thiee-fourlhs of this class are shoemakers, who derive 
no protection from the tariff. Both hatters and shoemakers 
manufacture a surplus above the consumption of this 
country, which must seek a market in foreign couhtries. 


221,732 

Thus, of the 506,083 persons engaged in the occupations respectfully given in the census, but 284,351— or a little more 
than one-half— derive, either immediately or remotely, protection from the tariff. To all the other classes it is a positive 
burden, inasmuch as it taxes them for all the materials imported from foreign countries, which they use in their business, 
or consume in their families. 

But the numbers given above include the “operatives,” or journeymen and apprentices, as well as employers, who get 
no more wages than they weuld obtain in other occupations requiring as much skill. In some, if not all the branches of 
manufactures above named, the wages of labor have actually been reduced since ihe passage of the tariff of 1842. That 
is the fact in regard to the persons employed in the cotton and woollen manufacture at Lowell, Massachusetts, as appears 
by the following table, made up from the returns of the factories, published annualyin that city: 

1842. 1844. 


Companies. • Yards ofcloth made Females em- Yards of cloth made Females em- 


Merrimack 

. 



per week. 
050,000 

ploved. 
1,300 ■ 

per week. 
250.000 

ploved. 

1,2.50 

Hamilton 

- 

- 

- 

210,000 

750 

lOO'OOO 

'650 

Appleton 

- 

- 

- 

100,000 

470 

100,000 

340 

Suffolk • 

• 

- 

- '■ 

90,000 

460 

90,000 

340 

Tremont 

- 

• 

- 

140,000 

460 

115.000 

360 

Lawrence 

- 

- 

. 

210.000 

1,290 

210,000 

900 

Boott - 

- 

. 

- 

180.000 

950 

180.000 

780 

Massachusetts - 

- 

•- 

- 

260,000 

950 

260,000 

725 

Reduction of hands employed. 

1,285. 

1,340,000 6,630 

Average wages of females in 1833, $2 00 per 

1,305,000 5,345 

w'eek — in 1844, ^1 75 per week. 


2T 


Thus, since the passage of the present tariff, the number of female operatives at Lowell have been re- 

since 1833 the rates of wages paid to fe- 
males have heen reduced one-eighth. Such is the protection which the poor and helpless female gets from 

do the immense bounties collected from the people through the instrumentality 
of the tariff, go? The dividends of the factory owners, ranging from 12 to 20 per cent, per annum on 

their capital stock, answer the question. It is the catntalist, not the poor operative and laborer, whom the 
tariff protects. i r r 

And the remark is true in regard to all other “ protected” interests. The operative and laborer are 
put off with wages barely sufficient to furnish them with the common necessaries of life ; while the capi- 
talist, who employs them, revels in opulence extracted from the people through the instrumentality of 
the iniquitous system of protection. If the operative and journeyman are adequately paid, why the fre- 
quent strikes nnd turn-outs for an increase of wages in our cities and manufacturing towns, among those 
valuable but oppressed classes of society? 

The civpitalists or employers do not compose one-tenth part of the number of persons given in the cen- 
sus as. employed in manufactures. The firotected classes, therefore — those who pocket the bounties which 
the tariff campers the people to pay to them — cannot, at the outs'ide, exceed bO, 000 persons in the whole U. States. 

But I pass on to the next topic which I propose to consider in this number, viz: The nonsense and ab- 
surdity of the tvhig maxim, ^Uhat the higher the duty the lower the price.’’^ 

After citing Mr. Clay, Mr. Webster, ex-President Adams, and other highly respectable authorities, 
(see No. 7,) against this palpably absurd assumption, it would seem to be hardly necessary to go into a 
grave argument to demonstrate its utter fallacy. But, as it is now seriously insisted upon by the wise- 
acres, or impostors, of the whig school, I shall devote a small space to the refutation of this absurdity. 

On recurring back a long senes of years, I do not deny that it will be found that the prices of manu- 
factured fabrics were higher than at the preso^it time. There is no doubt that they have, within the last 
tbiiW years, been greatly reduced. This period embraces the time during which we have had protective 
tariffs. And, in consequence of the two facts of the existence of a protective tariff and a reduction of 
price concurring at the same time, the propounders of the absurdity, that the higher the duty the lower 
the price, either from ignorance or sinister design, contend that the fall in prices has been caused by the 
tariff, which, they allege, has stimulated domestic competition, and thus reduced prices. Tables of 
prices are even given, in order to prove the unrei^sonable and false assumption that high duties cheapen 
prices. As I desire to give the advocates of this docti-ine the benefit of all the facts and argun^ents 
which they adduce in its support, I will cite one of their tables, which I find in a speech delivered by a 
member of Congress from Massachusetts during the debate in the House of Representatives on the pas- 


sage of the present tariff. It follows: 


■ 1816. 

1825. 

1829. 

00 

l-H 

Description of articles. 


Prices. 
s d. 

Prices. 
s. d. 

Prices. 

s. d. 

Prices, 
s. <7. 

Braces of 24 bits - - . 

_ 

18 

10 

7 6 

5 

0 

5 

0 

Hammers, per dozen 

- 

12 

0 

7 2 

5 

4 

4 

2 

Cupboard locks, per dozen - 

- 

4 

0 

2 7 

1 

10 

1 

3 

Steelyards, jier pair - - - 

- 

4 

8 

2 9 

1 

4 

1 

0 

Hinges, cast liutts, per dozen 
Compasses, rules, &c., per dozen - 

- 

3 

2 

2 3 

,1 

2 

1 

4 

- 

4 

2 

3 1 

2 

7 

1 10 

Currycombs, per dozen 

- 

3 

10 

2 0 

1 

4 

0 11 


Note. — The duty on the articles above-named was, in 1816, 20 per cent. ; in all other years, 25 per c. 

The gentleman* who made the speech from which the table above was taken, proceeds to his conclu- 
sion thus : “ Here is a lot of articles of the iron manufacture, which shows, most conclusively, that the 
duty, by producing domestic competition, has reduced the price more than one-haif.” 

It would appear, from the fact that the prices of the artices given by the.learned and astute gentleman, 
are stated in skillings and pence, that the table was made up from some English price-current. And the 
inference must be, that the American tariff had, by pi'oducing domestic competition in England, thus re- 
duced "the prices in that country — an inference too absui-d even for the advocates of the absurd theory 
against w'hich I am contending, to believe; particularly when it is recollected that the annual manufacture 
of hardware, according to McCulloch, amounts to 17,500,000, or $85,000,000, of which this country 
takes but about $2,500,000 annually. 

But I will assume that the profoundly learned gentleman to whom I allude, intends to be understood 
that “ the duty, by produeing domestic competition,” has. reduced the prices of the article in this coun- 
try more than one-half between the years 1816 and 1832 ; and I will then proceed to show that the same, 
or articles of a like description, have fallen in the same ratio in England; in short, that since 1816 there 
has been a general reduction of prices over the whole world. 

I begin with the following table of prices of certain articles of hardware in England : 


Prices. 


Prices. 


Description of articles. 

1818. 

1824. 

1828. 

1832. 

Description of articles. 

1818. 

1824. 

1828. 

1832- 

s. 

d. 

s. 

d. 

s. 

d. 

s. d. 

s. 

d. 

s. 

d. 

s. 

d. 

s. 

(7. 

Braces of bits, 12 in a set 

9 

0 

6 

3 

4 

2 

2 10 

Latches for doors, bugle. 








Shoe-hammers, per dozen 

6 

9 

3 

9 

3 

0 

2 9 

thumbs, per dozen 

2 

3 

2 

2 

1 

0 

0 

8 

Locks for doors, 6 inch. 







Sad irons, per cwt. 

Trace chains, per cwt. 

22 

6 20 

0 

14 

0 

11 

0 

per dozen 

Hinges, cast butts, 6 inch- 

38 

0 

32 0 

15 

0 

13 6 

28 

0 

25 

0 

19 

6 

15 

6 








Candlesticks, brass, 6 inch 2 

11 

2 

0 

1 

7 

1 

2 

es, per dozen 

0 

10 

0 

7 5 

0 

CO 

0 2i 

Bolts for doors, per gross 18 

0 

15 

0 

6 

0 

4 

0 

Shovel and tongs, fire- 








Anvils, per cwt. 

25 

0 20 

0 16 

0 12 

0 

irons, per pair 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

9 

0 5| 










*Hon. Mr. Hudson, of Massachusetts, 


28 


The table above is copied from a table of twenty-six articles in McCulloch’s Commercial ic i 
American edition, volume 2, page 118 ; each article exhibiting the same result, viz : a tall or more 
fifty per cent, in price. The year 1818 is the first year named by McCulloch. . 

1 now present the prices of certain articles in the markets of the United States at dinerentpeno s, co 
mencing with 1817 : 

1817. 1824. 1828. 1832. 


Articles. 

Flour, per bbl. 

Corn, northern, per bush. 
Kice, per bbl. 

Beef, No. 1, per bbl. 
Pork, No. 1, per bbl. 
Cotton, upland, per lb. 


Prices. Prices. Prices. Prices. 
75 $6 62 $5 50 $5 62 

1 90 48 55 62 

7 25 3 75 3 75 3 62 

12 00 7 00 8 25 8 25 

26 00 12 00 13 00 13 00 

.32 16 11 11 


Articles. 

Tobacco, per cwt. 
Molasses, per gall. 
Tea, Hyson, per lb. 
Muscovado sugar, 
cwt. 


1817. 1824. 1828. 18.32. 

Prices. Prices.Prices. Prices. 

j*13 00 $10 00 $6 50 $5 50 

" .-r. r.-? .JA 07 


53 

20 


27 

00 


30 

05 


27 

80 


per 


14 50 10 00 9 25 8 40 


[See McCullocK's Commercial Dictionary, Jlmerican edition, volume 2, pago .365.] 
I now give a table of the prices of certain articles in Great Britain at different periods : 


Articles. 

Flour, per sack 
Butter, per lb. 

Cheese, per lb. 

Salt, per bushel 
Beer, per bbl. 

Candles, per dozen, lbs. 

[See McCulloclCs Commercial Dictionamj, Aoierican edition, volume 2, page 352.] 

I next give a table of the prices of wheat at Odessa, in Russia, at different periods : 



1818. 

1824. 

1828. 

1832. 


Prices. 

Prices. 

Prices. 

Prices. 


£ s. d. 

£ s. d. 

£ s. d. 

£. s. d. 


- 3 8 5^ 

2 6 2 

2 6 0.1 

1 11 01 


n 


8| 

71 


6 

Ah 

5] 

4" 


19 9 

4 9“ 

1 10 

1 3 

• 

19 lU 

14 104 

13 1 

13 91 

- 

11 5|* 

5 6 

5 104 

5 2' 


Year. 

Price per quarter on 
board ship. 

Year. 

Price per quarter on 
board ship. 

March 31, 1817, 

58s. 

Od. 

March 31, 1824, 

16s. 

Id 

“ 1818, 

43 

7 

1837, 

18 

5 

“ 1821, 

“ 182.3, 

30 

19 

9 

10 

“ 1842, 

23 

8 


[See McCulloch'’s Commercial Dictionary, Jim. edition, vol. 1, page 51^, for all except the two last years.] 


Now, what is the result of all these tables } It is this : they show conclusively that there loas a general 
fall of prices over the whole commercial world, from 1816 to 1832. 

Was that iiniversal result produced by the operation of the American tariff, which stimulated “ do- 
mestic competition.^” Or, was it produced by other, more general and more adequate causes i 

With men of a tolerable share of common sense and common lionesty, it would hardly be necessary to 
argue these questions. That the trifling and insignificant cause of an increase of duty by the American 
tariff should produce an effect so widespread and universal, is too palpably absurd and ridiculous to rea- 
;son against. . Yet, out of compassion for such benighted whigs as believe such nonsense, I will proceed 
briefly to assign the real and substantial causes which have effected the fall of prices since 1816 to the 
present time, and in spite of high duties designed to prevent such a result. 

The causes of the high prices in 1818 in England (and similar causes ojjerated in other countries) were 
the following : 

1. ^in inflated state of the currency. At that period (1818) the Bank of England had suspended specie 
payments, and thus was removed the only check against an expansion of the currency. The inevitable 
■consequence followed, viz: a vast increase of the volume of the currency. But, three years previous, 
(1815,) the bank then being in a state of suspension, the circulation of England was $287,250,000, or $224 
per head for her population. (See Ex. Doc. No. 27, 2d sess. 23d Cong.) 

2. England was then in a state of war. The wars with Napoleon and with this country had indeed 
closed, bnt she had not then disbanded her soldiers. Nearly the whole world was at that period under 
iirms. Thus were there a large portion of the populations of the different kingdoms of Europe abstract- 
ed from the productive pursuits. Instead of being producers of manufacturing and agricultural products, 
they were consumers ; and thus was the demand for all articles of consumption gi'cater in proportion to the 
supply than at subsequent periods. 

3. The machinery %ised in manufactures icas then inuch more imperfect and defective than it is now, and, of 
course, could not multiply the different articles and fabrics of manufacture so rapidly as at the present 
lime. This was another cause why the supply was less in proportion to the demand. 

It was these causes, viz : an inflation of the currency, and a greater relative demand for consumption 
in proportion to the production, which caused the high prices of articles of manufacture, and even in 
many articles of provisions, in England at the period referred to. 

Similar causes at the same time were in operation in the United States. In 1811, the currency of the 
United States was $45,OO0,O0O, which in 1816 had been inflated to $116,000,000 ; all the banks south of 
New England being in a state of suspension. In this country, also, from 1812 to 1815, large masses of 
men were taken from the occupations of industry, to encounter the dangers and perils of the field. Thus 
was the number of consumers increased in proportion to the producers, causing the usual effect of a larger de- 
mand in proportion to the supply. And machinery used in manufactures was also comparatively imperfect 
.and defective, as it was in England, and in other parts of the world. Such were the main causes of high 
prices in this country, in England, and throughout the civilized world. 


29 


effected such a vast reduction of prices as the tables I have presented tend lo nrove > 
M was the very reverse of the causes that elevated thm, viz : ^ prove . 

England the active circulation, as before stated, was «22 50 per 

if ifir populatioji. In 18^9 the latest estimate after the bank had resumed specie payments 

^ V per hetid In this country, it was reduced from $11 per head in 1816, to $5 per head in 

1830, according to the estimates of Mr. Gallatin. ’ P 

’2. An inciease of supply in proportion to the demand. This was brought about by several causes. 1. By 
le le urn to l le occupations of industry of vast masses of men who had been engaged in bearing armsv 
i^re nine to all the occupations and callings of life, and thus became producers instead of consumers.. 

• e vast modern improvements in machinery. 3. The extraordinary increase of agricultural pro- 
ductions, including the raw material of manufacture. 

It is the gieat amount ol new land in this country, reclaimed from its wild and unproductive state, and 
appropriated to the raising of cotton, which has tended to reduce the' price of that article. In 1817, the 

ftHnoo ^“^7 130,000,000 of pounds. Now it exceeds 

ouu,uuu,U00. In 1816, the price of uplands was 30 cents per pound ; now it is from 6 to lO^ cents. 

1 he sanie causes have oc^sioned the vast production of wheat, Indian corn, and other agricultural 
products in this country, which have had the same effect upon the prices of those articles. They have 
iucreuse the supply m proportion to the demaiul, and hence the fall of prices was inevitable. 

1 hese are the true and philosophical causes of the fall of prices. They are fully adequate to the effect. 
And how contemptible, in contrast with them, does the foolish and silly assumption appear, that the 
American tariff has produced this mighty and universal effect. 

On the contrary, so far as manufiictures ai-e concerned, the tariff has had the effect to retard the fall of 
pnres; thus compelling tlie American laborer to pay higher for the fabrics he consumes, than he would 
have to pay were it not for the duties upon them. 

^ It is a fact susceptible of the clearest proof, that the prices of cotton and woollen manufactures, sugar,, 
iron, and other protected articles, have increased since the passage of the tariff of 1842. Go to the mer- 
chants on Pennsylvania avenue, and they will admit the fact and assign the tariff as the cause. 

Tlie expenses of living are a dead loss, not or.ly to individuals, but to a community. Therefore, all 
artificial increase of prices is detrimental and injurious, both to individuals and the community. Conse- 
quently, a tax, if unnecessary, is a positive injury, both to individuals and the community. And, when 
It is intposed with a direct view to enrich one class of individuals at the expense of all others, it becomes 
iniquitous, detestable, and abominable. 

In another number I shall show that the effect of the present tariff has been to raise the prices of pro- 
tected articles, and to depress the prices of agricultural products. BUNDELCUND. 


I No. 10. — The amount of capital, of products, and the number of persons employed in agriculture and manu~ 
j factures, compared. — Four-ffths of the exports of the United States are the products of agriculture. — The 

\ prices of protected articles have risen, while the products of agriculture have fallen under the operation of the 

I present tariff. — The causes of the phenomenon. — Profits of th» manufacturers and of the fanners and planters 

J compared . — The agriculturists derive no protection from the tariff. — The protective sxjstem a system of legisla-> 

tive robbery. 

The great, leading, and paramount interest of the United States is the agricultural. The capital in- 
vested in agriculture, including the farming and planting sections of the agricultural interest, is at least 
' ten times as great as that which is invested in manufactures. 

The amount of capital invested in agriculture in this country is estimated by the ablest and most intel- 
ligent statisticians at FOUR THOUSAND MILLIONS of dollars ; while the amount of capital invested 
in manufactures of all kinds is but about four hundred millions, according to the best authorities. 

Although the capital employed in agriculture appears immensely great in the aggregate, yet, in all pro- 
bability, it is far below the real amount. In Spackman’s Statistical Tables of the British Empire, the- 
value of the land in Great Britain (exclusive of her dependencies) is estimated at <€3,769,500,000 — equal, 
to about $18,100,000,000 in federal money. 

If that be a true estimate of the value of land in Great Britain, it surely cannot be unreasonable to es- 
timate the value of the land, slaves, and stock representing the capital invested in agriculture in this coun- 
try at less than onefburth of the value of the land in Great Britain, whose territory is but little larger hi 
I area than the State of New York, and whose population at the present time is not much greater than that 
of the United States. 

The disproportion between the annual products of the agricultural interest, and of manufactui-es, is 
nearly as striking. From careful estimates made from the census of 1840, it appears that the annual! 
products of agriculture in the United States amount to TWELVE HUNDRED MILLIONS OP 
DOLLARS ; while the value of manufactures of all kinds, (the cost of the raw material and labor inclu- 
ded,) is only about three hundred millions. 

The disparity of persons employed in agriculture, and in i\\o protected branches of manufacture, is still 
greater. In the manufacture of wool, only 21,342 persons are employed ; in that of cotton, only 72,119' 
persons ; in the iron business, and other protected branches of mining, 33,242 persons are employed. 
And these are the interests which are constantly teasing and distracting the country for protection — that 
is, for the privilege of levying bounties upon the great mass of their own countrymen, that their coffers- 
may be filled to overflowing. 

In the analysis of the manufacturing and mechanic classes which I made in my last number, I showed 
that not more than 284,351 persons of the whole population of the Union were employed in the pro- 
tected pursuits; and the bulk of those being “operatives,” not one-fifth of the 284,351 were the re- 
cipients of the bounties exacted by the present tariff. 


30 


On the other hand, the number of persons employed in agriculture is 3,719,607, or about fourteen 
times the number employed in the protected branches of manufactures. 

Not only does the agricultural interest employ ten tiihes the amount of capital, fourteen times the 
number of persons employed in the protected branches of manufactures, and produce four times as much 
in vdlue, but it furnishes four-fifths of the exports from this to foreign countries. The annual exports of 
this country average one hundred millions of dollars. Of this amount, more than four-fifths are produced 
by the planters and farmers, as appears from the custom-house returns, commencing witii 1840, which I 
have condensed into the following table : 

Year. Whole amount of Of which were the pro- 

exports. ducts of acriculture. 


1840, 

1841, 

1842, 

1843, (nine months,) 

1844, (last returns,) 


$113,895,634 

106,382,722 

92,969,996 

77,793,783 

99,715,179 


$92,525,339 

83,747,947 

73,688,113 

64,867,171 

79,850,410 


$490,776,314 $394,678,980 

Thus of the $490,776,314 of exports to foreign countries during the four years and nine months end- 
ing June 30, 1844, $394,678,980, or more than four-fifths, were the products of agriculture. The re- 
mainder was composed of the products of the forest, fisheries, and from five to ten millions of manufac- 
tures of all kinds, annually. Therefore, it appears the agricultural interest is the great preponderating 
interest of the country, and the basis of its foreign commerce. 

From the table which I have above given, it appears that the planters and farmers of this country pro- 
duce a surplus of agricultural products annually, beyond the consumption of the country, to the amount 
nearly of one hundred millions of dollars in value. 

As this surplus of products cannot be consumed in this country, it must find a market in foreign coun- 
tries, or it must remain and perish in the hands of the producers. 

Our noble country is still rapidly increasing in population. Its primeval forests are daily bowing be- 
fore the axe of the hardy pioneer. And its solitary prairies, but recently trod only by the savage and 
wild beast, are surrendering their rich fertility to the hand of civilized industry. Thus are the agricultu- 
ral capacities of the country every year becoming more and moijb developed. The surplus of agricultu- 
ral products will, therefore, continue to increase, and a still greater necessity exist for finding a market 
for them in foreign countries. If they cannot be sold in foreign countries, they must lie upon the hands 
of the farmer and planter, and become reduced in price, if they do not become wholly worthless. It is 
<in inevitable consequence, that, when the supply exceeds the demand for an article, it will greatly fall in price — 
if it can be sold at all. 

As the Great Father of the Universe, in his boundless beneficence to our beloved republic, has destined 
it to be the richest agricultural country which the sun ever shone upon — transcending even ancient Egypt 
in its fertility and abundance — and to produce far more of provisions, and of the raw material of manu- 
facture, than its. own population can consume^ it must of necessity, seek a market for its agricultural pro- 
-ductions in foreign countries. 

Now, it is a settled axiom in pohtical economy, that the trade between nations must be barter, or an ex- 
change of cbmmodity for commodity. If one nation buys the products of the labor and capital of another 
nation, it must pay in the products of its own labor and capital. If it does not — if it buys more in value 
of the commercial world than it sells to it, it must, inevitably, in the progress of time, become impover- 
ished and bankrupt. This principle of political economy the experience of mankind has incontrovertibly 
•established. The reverse of the principle is also true. If one nation will not buy the products of ano- 
ther, the latter cannot buy of the products of the former, unless it can sell the same amount to other na- 
tions; and other nations, in their turn, going round the circle of commerce, must sell the same amount 
to others. And thus the principle is again demonstrated, that the trade between nations must be barter, or 
ran equal exchange of commodity for commodity, labor for labor. 

I will now apply this princi})le to the trade between this and other nations. 

We raise a large surplus of agricultural products, which we desire to sell to other nations. England 
France, and other nations, manufacture large surpluses of cotton, woollen, silk, and other goods, which 
they wish to sell to us. They want our cotton, flour, rice, beef, pork, tobacco, &c. ; and we want their 
goods. If the trade were free, or if there were but moderate revenue duties in all these countries, the ex- 
•change could be made without difficulty, and with profit to all. 

But one or all impose what they call high protective duties upon the products of the others; and the re- 
sult is a derangement, if not a total destruction, of the trade between them. If one imposes such duties 
it commences the difficulty. If all do it, or proceed on the retaliatory or countervailing principle, so warmly 
recommended by the protectionists of this country, the difficulty is increased; and the people of all coun- 
tries are the sufferers by this heathenish and barbarous legislation. 

In order to protect the manufacturing and oilier favored interests, comprising comparatively but a very 
small portion of the population of this country, the government has imposeli high protective duties-— 
amounting, in effect, to prohibition in respect to some fabrics — upon the manufactures of other countries 
but operating mainly on those of England and France. These duties are so high, in many instances’ 
that the importing merchant cannot buy the manufactures of those countries, bring them here, pa^ the high 
duties imposed upon them, and sell them at a profit. He cannot, therefore, purchase of our planters and fami- 
•ers the products which he must pay in exchange for the manufact ures of other countries. 

The consequence is, that the products of the farmer lie upon his hands; or, if he sells them it must be 
at a very great sacrifice. Thus, in this country, producing a large surplus of agricultural products a high 
protective tariff causes a fall in the prices of those products. ’ ^ 


31 


agricultaral interests which a high protective tariff 

Srs:;r;5":s™szrK“ 

ivr, theoietically, a high protective tariff must produce two effects, viz: First, a fall in the vrice<t of the 

*'* “g^'^ural products i and 

rcoDv* from Stable' wh^h n ^ ?"'* ™' sustain the two propositions 1 have just stated. 

TtriceSeeZin leTHlnji appeared in the New York .Tournal of Commetee in 1844, containing the 
18411 to lS It ^ ^ agricultural products in the New York market on the 7th of June each year from 

riZfng if7:^tZ;SZnVrffZ eompZiseact 

Pr ices of cotton at %Mohile in the month of October in 
the folloioing years, viz: 


Articles. Prices in 1840. 
Beef, mess, per bbl. - ^14 25 
“ prime - - 10 00 

“ cargo - - G 50 

Pork, mess - - 15 00 

“ prime - - 13 25 

Hog’s lard, per Ib. - 10 

Butter, prime - - 17 

“ ordinary - - H 

Cheese, American - 6 

Hams, smoked - - IQi 

Flour. 

Genessee, per bbl. - 4 75 

Ohio - - 4 43 

Baltimore, per bbl. - 5 00 

Alexandria, “ - - 4 

Rye flour, “ - - 2 67" 

Corn Meal, “ - . - 2 874 

Grain — * 

Wheat, per bushel - 1 00 

Rye, per bushel - - * 52 

Corn, N., per bushel - 56 

Corn, S., per bushel - 52 

Wool — 

American Saxony, pr. lb. * 43 
“ full blood, pr. lb. 44 
“ § and 3 blood, 

per lb. - 33 


Prices in 1844. 

- $5 25 

- 3 25 
no price given 

- 8 50 


- 6 


124 

6 " 

13 

9 

44 

5" 

50 

37i 

75 

75 

00 

00 

96 

67 

50 

47 

41 

39 

35 


Years. 

1836. 

. 


Prices 

16 

per lb. 
to 20 cts. 

1842. 

- 

- 

74 

to 84 “ 

1844. 

- 

- 

6“ 

to 8" “ 

1845. 

- 

- 

54- 

to 64 “ 


[See Hunt’s Magazine for Nov. 1845, page 423.] 
Comparative prices of middling to fair cotton in J^'eur 
Orleans. 

1840, October - - 8 to lO’cts,. 

1845, October - - 6 to 74 “ 

Prices of wool in the f/ew York markets. 

Cts. Cts^ 


1840, wool, generally, per lb. 

1845, October, American Saxony pr. 
pound 

“ “ American full blood 

merino, per lb. - 
“ “ American | ^ blood 

merino, per lb. - 
“ “ Amex'ican native 5 me- 

rino per lb. 

[Prices for 1845 taken from the N. York Banker’s Week- 
ly Circular.] 


40 to 4a 
36 to 3a 
33 to 35 
29 to 32^ 
24 to 27 


Thus do the prices current prove that, from 1840 to 1844 and 1845, the prices of nearly all the leading 
agricultural products have fallen from 10 to 25 per cent. — some more and some less. The tables which, 
I have given show the general fact of afall in the prices of agricultural products under the operation of the 
present tariff. 

It is proper here to remark, that recently articles of provision have ri.sen in our markets. This rise, 
however, is not attributable to the effects of the tariff, but to other causes, viz : a dry and cold season in 
some parts of our own country, and to the potato rot ; but, more than all others to the short crops in Eu- 
rope — thus creating a greater demand in proportion to the supply. These causes neutralize the eftect of the 
tariff, and disarm it of its power to reduce the prices of provisions for the present year at least. 

Under this increased demand for provisions, the prices of cotton have fallen ; thus showing that, while 
the people of Europe are compelled to incur larger expenditures to procure breadstuffs, they are forced 
to consume less of the manufactures of cotton, causing a less demand irl proportion to the supply. 

But, to resume my argument. Having established the fact of a general fall in the prices of agricultural 
products under the operation of the present tariff, I will now proceed to show that my second proposition 
IS equally true, viz : that the tariff has caused a rise in the price of nearly every article of manufactures and. of' 
other protected articles. To prove this, I have again only to refer to the prices current, those unerring 
thermometers of trade, which indicate the value of property with as much certainty as Fahrenheit does: 
the degrees of heat and cold. I give, first, the wholesale prices of domestic goods sold in the New York 
market on the first day of August, 1842 and 1844, taken from the sales books of the selling agents in that 
city, which I find in the New York Morning News: 


Articles. 


1842. 

Cents. 

1844. 

Cents. 

1842. 1844 

Articles. Cents. Cents 

Brown cot’n flannels, Hamilton, pr yd. 104 

114 

37 inch brown Patuxent co. “ 

7| 8i 

Glasgow jeans - _ - 


17 

19 

44-inch Osnaburgs, grays, Pataps- 

104 12' 

Sheep’s gray casinets - 

(C 

30 

45 

co factory. _ - - “ 

37-inch brown sheetings. In. Head 

ii 

74 

84 

Penitentiary plaids and stripes, “ 

10“ iU 

Do. do. Delia B. 

ii 

7" 

8 

Salisbury company scarlet flannels, 


Do. do. Savage factory 

u 

8 

8 

No. 12 to 26 inclusive, - “ 

18 25i 

Do. do. Stark company 

a 

7 

85 

Merrimack blue prints, - “ 

m 14 

Do. do. Thistle factory 

(C 

64 

8 

Fall River do. - - - “ 

10 lOi. 

27-inch brown sheetings, “ 

(( 

5 

64 

Maverick sattinets, - - “ 

571 75 


32 


I have not been able to obtain the prices for 1845 of but very few of the above-named articles ; but those 

I have obUiined range as high as in 1844. ^ , loyio 

I now give the price of iron in the New York rnarket on the 30th July, in each of the years of 1842 
and 1845. 

Articles. 

Pig iron (British) per ton 
Pig iron (American) per ton 
Bar, Russia, P. S. I. 

Swedes - - - - - 

English refined - - - - 

Do common - - - - 

American rolled - - - - 

Sheet iron (Russia) per lb. 

Sheet iron (English and Amer' :an) per lb. 

Hoops (English and American) per cwt. 

I now give the prices of sugar in the New York market on the same day of the month in the same years. 



1842. 



1845. 



- $23 50 

to 

$24 50 

$35 00 

to 

$36 00 

” .V ^ •'A 

* 

21 50 

to 

30 00 

32 50 

to 

37 50 


- 102 50 

to 

105 00 

102 50 

to 

105 00 


80 00 



85 00 



• 

G5 00 

to 

70 00 

85 00 




50 00 

to 

50 50 

75 00 




65 00 

to 

70 00 

85 00 



* 

13| 

to 

14 

13 




5 

to 

54 

7 

to 

74 

- 

4 25 

to 

4 75“ 

5 50 

to 

6 50 


Articles 
St. Croix, per lb. 

New Orleans, per lb. 
Havana, white, per lb. - 
Do brown, per lb. 


1842. 

5| cts. to cts. 
3^ to 4i 


to 


1845. 

61 cts. to 8 

5 to 7 1 

10 to 103 

74 to 9 


cts. 


Lastly, I give the prices of certain other articles in the New York market, in the month of June of 



1843. 

1844. 

- 

li cts. 

114 

- 

114 

134 

- 

61 

84 

- 

6i 

81 

- 

124 

16 

- 

8“ 

10 

. 

18 

• 25 

- 

20 

271 

- 

27 

35 

- 

$2 00 

$2 50 

- 

2 37i 

3 50 


cts. 


Articles. 

Dover prints, per yard - - - 

Merrimack prints, per yard 
Chickopee D. brown sheetings, per yard 
Amoskeag, brown, per yard 
Summer pantaloon stuffs, per yard 
Boott-mill cotton, per yard 
Scarlet, white, and yellow flannels, per yard 
Do do do 

Do do do 

Broad cloths, per yard - - - 

Do do - - - 

Tlie tables of prices above given, establish conclusively the fact, that all the leading protected articles 
have risen in jmce since the passage of the tariff o/ 1842, notwithstanding the raw materials, (cotton and 
wool,) and the prices of provisions, have been cheaper than they were ever known to be before. 

And thus are the two propositions established by the testimony of incontrovertible facts, viz: That a 
high protective tariff reduces the price of every thing the farmer has to sell, and increases the pnce of every thiiig 
he has to buy. 

It is precisely the result which every man of common sense would suppose would flow from high 
duties. It is the effect which Mr. Webster, before he became, for a valuable consideration, the mouth- 
piece of the manufacturing capitalists, said high duties would produce upon the interests of the farmer. 

In 1820, before the Boston capitalists had embarked in manufactures, a meeting was held in that city 
to denounce the high-tariff system resorted to temporarily, in order to replenish the trea.sury and relieve 
the country from the embarrassments brought upon it by the then jecent war with England. Mr. Web- 
ster attended that meeting, and was a member of the committee appointed to report resolutions. That 
committee, among others, reported the following resolution, viz : 

“Resolved, That we are equally incapable of discovering its (the prohibitory tariff) effects upon agriculture, since the 
obvious consequence of its adoption would be, that the farmer must give more for all he buys, and receive less for aU he sells,’* 

This authority is to the point, and cannot be evaded by orthodox Whigs ; although I must confess 
that, on account of Mr. Webster’s numerous obliquities and tergiversations, I would not give much 
weight to any political opinion per se which he might give. I should prefer to have it sustained, as in 
this instance, by incontrovertible fact and immovable truth. 

The tables of prices which I have given also prove (as in my last number I proved) the absurdity and 
fallacy of the favorite Whig maxim, “ that the higher the duty, the lower the price.’’ A further persist- 
ing in that exploded fallacy would indicate a perversity of judgment and a depravity of principle sufficient 
to destroy the fairest and purest private character. 

I will now show, that while the tariff is impoverishing the farmers and planters, it is rapidly eyvriching the 
manufacturers. 

In order to establish this position, I copy from the New York Herald of 1844, the names of the lead- 
ing manufacturing corporations in New England, the par value of their stock, the market value of the 
.-same, and the semi-annual dividends. Side by side with those, I give, from Hunt’s Magazine, (for 
March, 1845, p. 300,) the dividends of the same mills for 1844, as corrected by the treasurers of the re- 
.spectivc corporations. 


33 


Names of Mills. 


U-, 

o 

(U 

IS 

> 


Market value of stocks. 




5 


CO 


“ .2 
<1^ Jh tC 

'TS o 

•r' O cC 



cd 

0- 




Ul 

Q 

Stark - - - 

$1,000 

$1,040 

to 

$1,060 

per ct. 

per ct. 

Cocheco 

700 

510 

to 

525 



Chickopee 

1,000 

750 

to 

■ 800 


3 

Cabot - - . 

1,000. 



1,000 

— • 

10 

Norwich 

1,000 



1,1871 



Boott - - . 

1,000 

1,030 

to 

1,050- 

6 

11 

Lowell - - > 

1,000 

1,000 

to 

1,060 

6 

7 

Middlesex 

1,000 

1,130 

to 

1,160 

35 

10 

Perkins 

1,000 

1,030 

to 

1,050 

9 

10 

Salisbury 

1,000 



800 

• 


Appleton 

1,000 

1,030 

to 

1,050 

— 

6 

Boston - - - 

750 



635 



Hamilton 

1,000 

1,055 

to 

1,065 


7 

Bartlett - - . 

1,000 

1,025 

to 

1,050 



Jackson 

900 



950 

6 

10 

Suffolk - - . 

1,000 



1,065 

6 

16 

Merrimack ^ 

1,000 

1,325 

to 

1,348 

— 

20 

Lawrence 

1,000 

1,130 

to 

1,150 


15 

Nashua 

500 

493 1 

to 

500 

6 

8 

Amoskeag 

1,000 

1,190 

to 

1,225 


9 

York - . - 

1,000 

1,190 

to. 

1,225 

6 

27 

Great Falls 

420 

• 250 

to 

'275 



Massachusetts - 

1,000 

1,050 

to 

1,075 

6 

14 

Tremont - . 

1,000 

1,060 

to 

1,080 

8 

16 

N. E. Worsted 

100 

100 





Lowell Bleaching 

— 



350 



Locks and Canals Co. - 

500 



950 

10 


Thorndike 





6 

14 

Dwight 

— 

— 


— 

— 

8 

Palmer - - - 

— 

— 


— 

— 

16 

Otis _ - > 

— 

— 


— 

— 

10 


Thus it appears, that the dividends on the capital stock of the above named companies, for the year 
1844, ranged from 3 to 10, 16, 20, and 27 per cent . — averaging over 11 j)er cent, on the whole ; besides 
le^ing in the treasuries of nearly all of them a large surplus, as clearly appears by the rise in the mar- 
ket value over the par value of their stocks. 

Now, what do the farmer and planter realize from the capital which they have invested in the business 
of eigriculture, after paying all expenses? I have not sufficient data to enable me to make an accurate 
calculation; but I venture to say, that they do not realize more than 3 to 4 per cent, at the outside. la 
addition to the small nett income they derive from their farms and plantations, they have, since 1840, 
.suffered a loss in the depreciation of their lands and stock, at least to the amount of 25 per cent., result- 
ing mainly from the great fall in the prices of the products of their farms and plantations. 

Does it comport with the character of the proudest republic of modern times, which has emblazoned 
upon its banner the spirit-stirring words of “liberty arid equality;” whose Government professes to be 
founded in the purest equity and justice, and to apportion its burdens and its blessings equally upon all; 
to tax the masses of its citizen.s — the planters, farmers, and laborers — in order to enable the Lawrences, 
the Appletons, and other nabob manufacturers who are worth their millions, to realize enormous profits 
on their capital ? It is for those oppressed masses to ansicer. 

Political economists, by long investigation, have come to the conclusion, that the average profit on all 
the capital of a community employed by the individuals who compose it, is 6 per cent. And hence, 
legislators have generally fixed the rate of interest at 6 per cent., in order that the money-lender shall 
have no more than his share of the profits of the capital of a community. 

But the tariff helps the manufacturer to about 12 per cent., which is legislated out of the pockets of 
the other classes of the people, who consume the products of the manufacturer. 

Is there any justice or right in such legislation? Is it not legislative robbery, which is the slyest, most 
insidious, and most detestable of all descriptions of robbery? When the highwayman presents his 
pistol to our bosoms, and demands our money, we understand him. It is a frank, open-handed, above- 
board proceeding. He does it at the peril of his life and liberty. We may draw a pistol and shoot hint 
down, or we may let him have our money, convict him of the offence, and send him to prison. We 
have no such remedy against the robber who filches our pocket by the aid of legislation, under the plea 
of protection. We can neither shoot down the protective freebooter nor send him to prison. Nay, he 
coolly pockets our money, and impudently and shamelessly asks the Government to enable him to take 
more from us ! 


34 


He who is plundered by this species of legislative robbery, must boil over with indignation at the un- 
just, iniquitous, and criminal system which permits it. He who thrives by it, if he has the heart of an 
honest man beating in his bosom, must blush with shame when he pockets the ill-gotten gains which the 
legislation of his country enables him unjustly to extort from his injured apd oppressed neighbors and 
fehow-citizens. BUNDELCUND. ' 


No. 11. — Protection to the loool-groioer considered. — The duty on v^oola humbug . — The ichig party in Congress^ 
voting against every proposition to benejit the agriculturist. — The present tariff teas designed by its framers 
not to be a farmer ''s, biU a manufactureris tariff. — The home market considered; also the absurd sophism, 
of protecting American industry, by taxing the numerous industrial classes to benefit the few favored classes. 

The purpose of my last number was to show that, in every point of view, the planters and farmers of 
this country, composing in aggregate numbers and wealth by far the most important class of our citizens, 
were injured and oppressed by a protective tariff. 

I have a few facts and considerations to which I would most respectfully call the attention of a portion 
of the agriculturists residing mainly in the northern and middle portions of the Union. I mean the- 
wool-growers. 

The- interests of the manufacturer and of the producer of the raw material are adverse to each other.. 

* The manufacturer, who is the first consumer, or rather purchaser, of the raw material, is interested in 
obtaining it at as low a price. as possible; while the producer strives to get a higher price. • This brings- 
about a direct collision of interest between them, however much the one may profess to be friendly to 
the interests of the other. 

The manufacturer of wool is interested in getting the raw article at as cheap a rate as possible; and the 
same of the cotton manufacturer. But while they have been striving for protection for themselves, they 
have pretended to be in favor of protecting the farmer who grows wool, and the planter who grows cotton. 
To the farmer they have, in the present tariff, allowed a duty of 30 per cent, ad valorem, and three cents 
specific, on descriptions of wool not brought into the country; because, of that kind, the American farmer 
produces a sufficient supply; but, upon descriptions of icool ichich the manufacturers do need, and of xchick large 
quantities are brought in, they allow a duty of 5 per cent, ad valorem, which does not exceed three and a half 
mills per pound. ^ 

To the cotton-grower, who supplies the whole world, and who defies competition in every market, 
domestic or foreign, they graciously vouchsafe a humbug duty of 3 cents per pound. 

My purpose now is to show that the protection pretended to be extended to the wool-grower by the 
present tariff is mere humbug, and avails him nothing. And first, I would call the attention of the wool- 
grower to the import of wools of the cheap and dear classes during the last four years and nine months, 
as gathered from the tables of commerce and navigation : 


Year. Costing 

CHEAP WOOL. 

less than 7 and 8 cents per lb. 
Pounds. Cost. 

DEAR W’OOL. 

Costing more than 7 and 8 cents per lb 
Pounds. Cost. 

1840 

9,303,992 

$679,009 

1,594,748 

$171,067 

1841 

14,409,764 

927,289 

596,646 

173,672 

1842 

10,637,251 

685,649 

783,701 

lli;733 

1843, (9 mo.) 

4,773,795 

462,795 

210,570 

66,787 

1844* - 

13,808,645 

754,441 

199,763 

97,940 

(^Latest returns.) 

52,932,735 

$3,559,175 

2,385,428 

$620,799 


Before the passage of the tariff act of 1842, all wool costing less than eight cents at the place fror/r 
which it was imported was admitted duty free. By the present act, all under seven cents is taxed with 
a duty of 5 per cent. Thus it appears, from the table above, that, during the four years and nine months- 
ending June 30, 1844, the manufacturers imported into this country very near FIFTY-THREE MIL- 
LIONS of pounds of wool, all of it costing less than eight cents per pound, and a good share of it less 
than seven cents, for which they paid in gross the sum of $3,559,175. And during the same time they 
imported only 2,385,428 pounds, costing $620,799, of the descriptions of wool paying the highest duty. 

The cheap wools imported into this country are brought mainly from the Argentine republic in South: 
America. They are not all coarse, as their price would imply; but many of them equal tlie |, i, and 
even I blood merino grades raised in this country. They cost but little where they are obtained, for two 
reasons: first, because they are full of dirt; and, secondly, because the manufacturers of this country, I am 
informed, own many of the flocks in South America from which the fleeces are taken. I have this fact from 
one of the agents employed by the Lowell manufacturers to purcliase in New England their yearly stocks 
of wool for manufacture. This person informed me that he purchased a large number of merino bucks 
for the manufacturers at Lowell, to be sent to Soxith America to cross icith the native sheep. * 

Remarkable as it may seem, I find this information sustained by the tables of commerce and navio-a- 
tion. In 1837, I find that 300 sheep, costing $6,000, or $20 per head, were exported to the ArgenUne 
republic, from which country the greater quantity of the cheap wools is imported. And, in 1838, 1 find 
that 801 sheep, costing $4,565, or nearly $6 per head, were exported to the same country. The ’prices: 
of the sheep indicate the kind which are exported, and leave no doubt of the truth of the statemejit that 
the manufact urers of this country oum large flocks of sheep in South America, and lutve sent out a comparatively 
large number of bucks, to cross with and improve the breed of the native sheep. And hence the fineness of the 
South American wools imported into this country. Owning the flocks, they can import their wool at 7 
cents per pound, or at even a lower price. 

The cheap wools brought into the country are used in the manufacture of carpets, satinets, and the- 
ordinary cassimeres, &c., worn by the great mass of the people. The competition, therefore, which the- 


35 


Jlmti'ican wool-gi'otver has to sustain, is loith the cheap wools, which pay, at the most, only the paltry and in- 
significant duty of three and a half mills per pound. 

^ And why are not the dearer wools imported? The answ'er is, because those kinds of wool are higher 
m the markets of Europe than they are in this countnj; and therefore our manufacturers can gain nothing hu 
importing them. ° ^ ^ 

To illustrate this position, I have compiled, from McCulloch’s Commercial Dictionary, article “w'ool ” 
a table showing the range of prices in the market of London, for 1836, which are the latest I can obtain: 


Description of wool. Sterling currency. 
Saxony and Silesian wool. s. d. s. cl. 

1st and 2d elect, per lb., 4 6 to 5 6 

Prima, 3 0 to 3 9 

Secunda, 2 6 to 2 10 

Tertia, _ 2 2 to 2 6 

Spanish wool. 

Leonora, highest price, 2 9 to 3 2 

Seville, lowest price, 2 6 to 2 3 


Fed. money. Description of wool. Sterling currency. 

cts. cts. Austrcdiun wool. 

108 to 132 Best flocks, .super ’e fleeces, 

72 to 90 Inferior flocks, 

60 to 68 British fleeces. 

52 to 60 North & S’th Down hoggets, 

Kent fleeces, 

66 to 76|Leicester fleeces, 

48 to 541 


d. s. 
6 to 3 

6 to 2 

7 to 1 

8 to 1 
4 to 1 


d. 

2 

3 

10 

lOi 

7 


Fed. money. 
cts. cts. 
60 to 76 
36 to 54 

38 to 44 
40 to 45 
32 to 38 


I will now give the prices of the same articles in the American market, as quoted in the prices current 
of the Boston newspapers, from 1816 down to 1845, including the periods of the tarifls of 1816, 1824, 
1828, 1832, and 1842 ; which, down to 1840, inclusive, will also be found in Hunt’s Magazine, vol. 4, p. 287: 


Year. 

Prices. , 

Year. 

Piices. 

Year. 

Prices. 

Year. 

Prices. 


cts. cts. 


cts. cts. 


cts. cts. 


cts. cts. 

1817 

- 32 to 60 

1825 

- 25 to 70 

1833 

- 44 to 63 

1840 t 

43 to 44 

1818 

- 55 to 60 

1826 

- 25 to 65 

1834 

- 43 to 60 

1841 

25 to 45 

1819 

- 55 to 85 

1827 

- 25 to 50 

1835 

- 55 to 65 

1842 

18 to 33 

1820, 

no prices given 

1828 

- 30 to 50 

1836 

- 60 to 80 

1843 average 27 

1821 

- 55 to 85 

1829 

- 25 to 45 

1837, 

no prices given 

1844 

25 to 40 

1822 

- 33 to 65 

1830 

- 38 to 60 

1838 

- 45 to 47 

1845, Am.full bl’d, 35 to 37 

1823 

- 35 to 65 

1831 

- 45 to 70 

1839 

- 55 to 60 

“ Sax’y fleece, 37 to 40 

1824 

- 25 to 70 

1832 

- 38 to 68 





In the New York market the prices for 1345 are quoted in the prices current as follows: 



American-Saxony, per lb. 

. 

- 

- 

36 to 38 cents. 



American ~ and 

1 blood merino 

- 

- 

33 to 35 “ 



American native 

1 blood merino 

- 

. - 

24 to 27 “ 



The tables above establish the fact, that the prices* of the higher grades of wool are as high inEurope 
as they are in this country ; ranging in 1836 from 60 to 80 cents per pound in this country, and in Lon- 
don from 32 cents to $1 32. They are at the present time higher, as is abundantly proved by the fact, 
that dining the present season several cargoes of flne ivool have been expoiied from this counti'y to England. I 
have before me several pai-^raphs which I have taken from newspapers during the present season, 
proving this fact ; one of which I copy from the New York Journal of Commerce : 

“ Exportation OF wool. — There have been shipments of wool to England lately, to the extent of 100,000 lbs., and 
there are further orders in market. The reason of these shipments is, that wool can nowhere else be bought so cheap as 
in this country. This is the high price which was promised to the farmers as tlie effect of the tariff, and to reward them 
for paying double price for manufactured goods. Henceforth American wools are to be the cheapest in the world, and our 
exports are to increase rapidly from year to year, until they reach a value which no man can now foresee. The price of 
wool is never again to rise much above its present range. The days of a dollar a pound have passed away, never to return. 
Nothing keeps the price of wool where it now is, and certainly nothing will prevent it from falling to half its present rates, 
but the policy of England, which admits it duty fiee.” 

Thu.s is the fact incontrovertibly established, that the wool-groicer of this country derives no protection 
from the tariff system. 

The duty upon wool is a mere humbug duty, like the duty upon corn, wheat, potatoes, &c., &c., to 
delude the farmer into the support of a system which filches his pockets while it pretends to fill them. 

The framers of the present tariff knew that the manufacturers of this country would not import the 
dearer qualities of wool, because they were higher in other countries than in this, and because this country 
produced an ample supply of those qualities; and, therefore, in order to carry out the system of hum- 
buggery in respect to the farmer, they imposed a higher duty on those qualities of wool which the man- 
ufacturers do not want, while they let in the cheaper kinds, which the manufacturers do want, and which, 
displace so much American wool, at the paltry duty of three and a half mills per pound. 

To show that the whig framers of the present tariff were determined to protect the manufacturer at the 
•expense of the farmer, I will recur to a few of the votes taken in the Senate, while the subject was under- 
o-oino- discussion in that body, in the session of 1841-’42. While the bill was pending in the Senate, 
Edr. Preston of South Carolina, moved to strike out the duty of five per cent, on cheap wools, and insert 
TWENTY PER CENT. The vote upon tlie proposition was taken by yeas and nays, and resulted as follows: 


Yeas— Messrs. Allen, Benton, Fulton, King, Linn, McRoberts, Phelps, Preston, Sevier, Smith of Connecticut, Tappan, 
Wilcox Williams, Woodbury, Wright, and Young — 17. 

Nays’— Messrs Archer Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Choate, Clayton, Conrad, Crafts, Crittenden, Dayton, Evans, Graham, 
Huntington, Kerr, Mangum, Meirick, Morchead, Porter, Simmons, Smith of Indiana, Sprague, Tallmadge, White, and 
Woodbridge— 27 —See Senate Journal, 1841- ’42, p. 531. 

The Senators who voted in favor of the increase of duty on wool were all democrats, except Messrs. 
Phelps and Preston, while all those voting against it were whigs. 

Afterwards on the same clause of the bill. Col. Benton moved to strike out “seven ” and insert “five.” 
The effect of this amendment, if adopted, would have been to impose a duty of 30 per cent, ad valorem, 


3G 


and three cents specific, on all wool imported into the country costing over five cents instead of seveiiv 
As but little if any wool can be obtained for less than five cents per pound, the effect of the amendment 
would have been to impose the highest duty, viz: 30 per cent, and three cents on all kinds of wool im- 
ported into the country. On that proposition the vote was as follows, viz : 

Yeas.— Messrs. Allen, Benton, Buchanan, King, Linn, McRoberts, Preston, Smith of Connecticut, Stui-geon, Tappan, 
Wilcox, Williams, Woodbury, Wright, and Young — 15. , r. , -n \ 

Nays.— Messrs. Bashy, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Calhoun, Choate, Claytim, Conrad, Crafts, Dayton, Ey^ns> 
Huntington, Kerr, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter, Simmons, Sprague, lailmadge, Walker, White,, 
and Woodbridge — 26. [See Senate Journal, 1841-2, p. 531. 


All the senators voting in the affirmative, except Mr. Preston, are democrats ; and all those voting in 
the negative, except Messrs. Bagby, Calhoun, and Walker, are whigs. But this is not all. During the 
first session of the last Congress, the whig members of the House of Representatives voted against Gen. 
McKay’s bill, which raised the duty on cheap wools from five to fifteen per cent. And further: when 
that bill was in Committee of.the Whole on the state of the Union, they voted against a motion to raise that 


item of the hill from 15 to 25 per cent. _ 

For the purpose of further testing the professed friendship of the whig framers of the present tariff for 
the farmer, Mr. Tappan, of Ohio, offered the following amendment to the bill then pending before the 
Senate, viz: 


“ ^nd he it further enacted, That whenever the President of the United States shall receive satisfactory evidence that 
the grain, flour, and salted provisions, exported from the United States in vessels owned by the citizens ot the United 
States, are admitted free oj duty into the several ports of any European slate or kingdom, he shall make proclamation 
thereof to the people of the United States; and thereupon, after the expiration of three months from the date of such 
proclamation, the duties imposed by this act upon all articles the growth and manufacture of such state or km-idoin so 
admittins!^ such graiiiyfiouTy and salted prot^isions ftee of dxity^ so far as the same exceed 20 per cent, ad valorem} shall, 
thenceforth be cliargeable witli a duty of 20 per cent ad valorem, and no more.” 


This amendment proposed to all foreign nations that would admit those important agricultural products 
dnty free, to admit into this country their productions under a duty of 20 per cent. The proposition teas 
intended for the benefit of the American farmer, and it secured to the American government the best end of 
the bargain by 20 per cent. Yet, the whig majority in the Senate voted it down. 

The following is the vote upon the amendment of Mr. Tappan, after it was so modified as to embrace 
“ unmanufactured tobacco,” viz : 


Yeas.— Messrs. Allen, Bagby, Benton, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Fulton, King, Linn, McRoberts, Sevier, Smith, of Connec" 
ticut. Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, Wilcox, and Young — 16. 

Nays.— Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Choate, Clayton, Conrad, Crafts, Crittenden, Dayton, Evans, Graham,. 
Trunlirigton, Kerr, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter, Preston, Simmons, Smith, of Indiana, Sprague, 
■“allmadge, and VVhiie — 28. — See Seriate Journal, 1841-2, pp. 528, 529. 


All the senators voting in the affirmative are democi'ats ; all the negatives are whigs. 

These votes prove that it ivas the design of the framers of the present tariff to nutke a MANUFACTU- 
RER’S TARIFF, and not a farmer’’ s tar'ff. And hence, every proposition to benefit the farmer was voted 
down. 

I leave this pregnant fact with the farmers of this country, without further comment. 

^ Among other rare virtues xvhich the friends of the protective system claim for it, is this, — that it tends 
to build up manufactures, and thus to create a home market for the products of the farmer. 

This doctrine is akin to Mr. Webster’s celebrated maxim, “ let the government take care of the rich, 
and the. rich will take care of the poor.” The manufacturers must be enriched with largesses and boun- 
ties drawn from the pockets of the people, and they in return will protect and enrich the farmers. 

I will now show the fallacy and humbuggery of this idea of a home market for- the surplus products 
of the farmer. According to the reports of Mr. Ellsworth, the following is the amount of W'heat and. 
Indian corn raised in the United States during the three last years, viz: 

Years. Ab. of bushels. 

1842 ------- Wheat, 102,317,340 Indian corn, 441,829,246? 

1843 do. 100,310,850 do. 494,618,306 

1844 do. 95,607,000 do. 421,953,000 


298,235,190 1,358, 400, 55^ 

The annual average crop of wheat is about 100,000,000 of bushels ; and of corn about 450,000,000 
It takes five bushels of wheat to make one barrel of flour; consequently, the 100,000,000 of bushels an- 
nually raised in this country would be equal to 20,000,000 barrels of flour. 

Now, how much of this immense quantity do the manufacturers, who are to make the home market 
for the farmer, consume 

Writers on political economy in England allow bushels per annum for the consumption of each 
person. But, in order to be on the safe side, I will suppose that each inhabitant of this republic con- 
sumes eight bushels. In a former number I have shown that all the persons in the United States, en- 
gaged in any way in the protected branches of manufactures and mining, do not exceed 284,351. Al- 
lowing eight bushels of wheat to each one per annum, they would all consume 2,274,808 bushels. The 
quantity of flour used for starch and bleaching each year by the manufacturers, is not far from 30,000 
barrels, equal to 150,000 bushels. This, added to the former quantity, would make an aggregate of 
2,424,808 bushels of the 100,000,000 raised, which is the extent of the home market which the manu- 
facturers furnish- for the wheat raised by the farmers, not to say anything about the 450,000,000 busheliS- 
of corn — not the one hundredth part of which do the manufacturers consume. 

On recurring to the tables of exports during the last four years and nme months, I find the following- 
quantities of wheat exported from this country to Great Britain and her dependencies, calculating five; 
bushels for each barrel of flour exported, viz : 


3T 


Years. 

1840 

1841 

1842 

1843 (9 months) - 

1844 (latest returns) 


Ao. of hiishels expoi'ted. 
8,202,614 
5,335,420 
5,023,144 
2,353,176 
5,200,993 


Value. 
$8,449,785' 
5,239,071 
5,718,855 
2,021, 9«5 
4,226,266 


26 115 347 ^25 655 962 

Thus it appears that Great Britain and her dependencies purchase annually more than twice as muck 
o t le wheat produced by the farmers of this country, as the American manufacturers purchase ; and 
(jrreat Britain and her colonies take but little more than half of the quantity sent abroad. I have con- 
sidered only the single item of wheat. Of the corn, potatoes, hay, beef, pork, butter, lard, &c., the dis- 
parity IS equally as great, if not greater. In view of these facts, how supremely ridiculous is it for the 
II lends of protection to prate about the home market which the manufacturers provide for the products 
of the farmer. I venture to say, that two of the most fertile counties in Illinois would supply all the 
wheat consumed by the whole manufacturing population of the United States. It is not among the 
possibilities for the manufacturer to provide a market fm' the surplus agricultural products of the United 
States. 


_ The farmer, therefore, is compelled to look to foreign countries for markets for his sunilus produc- 
tions ; and, in order to sell in foreign markets, he must purchase the commodities produceu by the peo- 
ple with whom he trades. He must barter his wheat for their cloths, or he cannot sell it at all. How 
unjust and oppressive then is it, that he should be loaded down with such enormous duties as the present 
tariff imposes on the cloths for which he has exchanged the productions of his own farm. 

These consideration.s lead me to the last topic which I propose to discuss in this number — which is, 
the absurd sophism of protecting American industry, by taxing the numerous industrial classes, in order 
to benefit a few favored classes. 

What is American industry ? Is it not producing wheat, corn, cotton, tobacco, rice, potatoes, beef^ 
pork, butter, cheese, lard, &c., &c., as well as manufacturing cotton and woollen goods, digging iron and 
coal from the bowels of the earth, making sugar, and boiling salt.^ Certainly it is. Moreover, the agri- 
cultural and unprotected classes are vastly more numerous, and represent, as I have already shown in 
a former number, vastly greater pecuniary interests than the protected classes. 

I will carry the matter a little farther. The manufacturer, by his industry and capital, produces a 
bale of cloth. The farmer, by his industry, raises wheat, tobacco, or cotton, which he exports to a for- 
eign country, and exchanges for a bale of cloth. Is not this last bale of cloth as much the product of the 
farmer’s labor — of his “American industry” — as though he had manufactured it with spindle and loom, 
as the manufacturer has who produced his bale ^ li is undeniable. 

Yet, when the farmer comes to the custom-house to enter his bale for consumption in this country, he 
is told that, before he can be permitted to sell his cloth in the home-market, he must pay a duty of 30, 
40, or 50 per cent, on the value, in order to enable the home manufacturer to sell his bale that muck 
higher, without paying any duty at all. He is forced to comply with this unjust demand — this favoritism 
to the manufacturer — or he must cease to trade abroad. If he choose the former alternative, the manu- 
facturer will undersell him; and he is forced to sacrifice his property. If he chooses the latter, his sur- 
plus wheat, &c., must remain upon his hands and perish. Legislation, which produces such results, is 
called ^‘protection to home industry.'^ 

Foreign commerce stimulates the productive energies of a nation, whether or not that commerce intro- 
duces into the country articles of luxury or of mere necessity. The bon vivant who has purchased a 
■ dozen bottles of champagne wine, has paid their value to the farmer of Illinois who has raised the wheat, 
or the planter of South Carolina who has raised the cotton, which has been exchanged with the foreign 
wine-grower for the wine consumed by the good liver of this country. It is, in effect, precisely the same 
as though he had paid that amount of money to the wheat-grower for so much in value of wheat, or to 
the cotton-grower for so much in value of cotton. 

Thus is It with the lady who flaunts in costly silks. Those silks, as is the case with nearly all other ar- 
ticles of luxury or necessity brought from abroad., have first been paid for by the labor of the farmer and planter^ 
It is the cotton, rice, tobacco, wheat, and other agricultural productions, which have been exchanged for 
them. Therefore, in effect, the lady who rejoices in her fine silks, has paid her money to the farmer, 
whose labor had purchased and brought them into the country. Consequently, if the importation of for- 
eign commodities is checked by high duties, it checks, in turn, the production of those articles which are exchanged 
for them. 

The result is, that the true protection to American industry is the encouragement op 

COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES, BY AN APPROXIMATION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF FREE TRADE, S» 
FAR AS A REVENUE TARIFF WILL PERMIT. BUNDELCUND^ 


I'j'o. 12 . — The balance of trade — The absurdity propounded by the “ JTational Intelligencer,''^ in relation to it— 
The effect of the tariff upon the cwn'ency — The circumstances under ivhich the present tariff icas passed-^Gen- 
eral reflections — Conclusion. 

When the respectable and erudite organ of the whig party of these United States, located at Washing- 
ton — I mean the National Intelligencer — discourses upon Biitish interests, and advocates British policy, 
against the interests and policy of its o-vyn country, it is }X!rfectly at home. It “ talks like a book” oa 
those subjects, because the hearts and sympathies of its editors are with and for our ancient enemy. But 
when it leaves the- beaten track of subserviency to foreign interests, and talks learnedly of the tariff and 
-the balance of trade, it steps aside from the line of its “daily walk and conversation,” and betrays ita 


38 


ignorance of the subjects which it pretends to discuss.- It is not because its editors are unable to com- 
prehend such matters, but because, it may be, their “ treasures ' are laid up” in the coffers of some for- 
eign potentate or government; and where their treasures are, there also are their hearts. But the people 
of the United States understand the peculiar circumstances which surround the Intelligencer, and it is 
therefore unnecessary longer to dwell upon them : 

In an editorial article in the National Intelligencer, under date of October 8th, after discoursing learn- 
edly on the balance of trade, the editors add : 

“ It is quite clear, we think, that the safest and most solid business for us would be to make our exports exceed our im 
ports, because the balance, wliatever it may be, will come to us in coin; that is to say, if, in 1846, we export one hundred 
and fifty millions, and import only one hundred millions, the balance of fifty millions due us by the residue of the world 
will be received in the ‘ hard,” which, should be as welcome to the locofocos as to the wings. 

I understand the Intelligencer to mean, that this policy of exporting a large amount of cbmmodities mor® 
than M'^e import of the commodities of other nations, receiving the balance in the “^/lard,” should be th® 
permanent policy of this country. 

Now, let us see what would be the effect of such a system of policy upon other nations, and upon our 
own country. 

The best informed writers upon the precious metals suppose that there is about $5,000,000,000 of gold 
and silver in use in the whole commercial world. This amount is just 100 times $50,000,000. Therefore, iff 
the Intelligencer’s plan of bringing home each year a balance of $50,000,000 in gold and silver, from 
other nations, were pursued as a permanent policy for one hundred years, this nation ico^dd drain Uie 
whole world of its specie. Not only* would all countries be deprived of their -circulating medium of gold 
and silver, but, also, of their paper currency, as gold and silver are, and must be, everywhere, the sub- 
stratum of a paper currency. And the result of this policy would be, the universal bankruptcy of nation 
and of individuals — bringing in its train universal distress and universal anarchy. 

Such are the inevitable consequences, in respect to all nations except our own, if the notions of the 
National Intelligencer were to become the permanent policy of this country, and if it were among the 
possibilities to make a- totally impracticable scheme practicable. 

And what would be the effect upon our own country and people ? The results would be equally disas- 
trous. The importation of two years’ balances in the “ hard,^'' which would be an addition of $100,000,000 
• to our currency, would upset and derange our whole monetary system. It u'ould instantly cause a gi'eat 
rise in the price of all products ; and in spite of the profound and sagacious theory of the Intelligencer, 
it would, in respect to all foreign countries, turn the balance of trade against us. 

But, before that consequence would follow, it would stimulate speculation to an unheard-of extent; 
ending in revulsion, public embarrassment, individual bankruptcy, and wide-spread ruin and distress. 

If, however, it were possible, in the nature of things, that the system of the Intelligencer could be con- 
tinued one hundred, or even no more than fifty years, gold would become so plenty in this country, that 
a pound of it would not, in relation to other things, be worth so much as a pound of pewter now is ; and 
would buy no more wheat, cloth, or other commodities entering into the consumption of the country. Such 
are the absurd and ridiculous consequences to which the fanciful theory of the profound organ of federal- 
ism in this city inevitably leads. 

More modest and less presuming writers on political economy contend, that the trade between nations 
must be an equal exchange of commodity for commodity, labor for labor. Then, as labor is the source of all 
value, each nation enjoys the full fruits of the industry of its citizens, and increases its wealth in propor- 
tion to the aggregate amount of the excess of its industry over the ^.mmal cost of its consumption. 

It is idle to contend that one nation can speculate out of another, and, like a horse-jockey, bring home 
the balance of its ill-gotten profits in cash. No ; the Great Ruler of the universe has proclaimed, in the 
immutable laws of his providence, that swindling shall not exist and flourish among nations ; and that, 
if it were possible to be practised by one nation, punishment, sooner or later, in the form of national ca-^ 
lamity and suffering, will surely overtake the nation thus offending. He has so established the laws of 
trade, that one nation cannot have more than its proportion, according to its property and its commerce 
of the precious metals, which he has created for the equal benefit of all, and designed to be used as 
money by all. Therefore, if one nation brings home a balance in cash from other nations in one year; 
in the next, if it have more than its due proportion, it must let it go back. 

And such is the universal law of trade between nations. Governments cannot control the influx and 
the efflux of the precious metals. Like the winds of heaven, they go whither they list; in other words 
they go wherever the wants of trade demand their presence. And neither the edicts of despots, nor 
the prohibitive tariffs of republics, can prevent them from obeying this law, w’hich is instinct in the na- 
ture of things, because it had its origin in the Great Source of all law, truth, and justice. 

But let us look a moment to facts, and see how this balance of trade practically operates. I find, on 
recurring to Hunt’s Magazine for September, 1845, p. 284, a table exhibiting the balances for and against 
ws, with all countries ; from which I quote the balances against us, and in favor of Spain, Brazil and. 
China, for the years 1842, 1843, and 1844, viz: • . ’ 

Year. In favor of Spain, and In favor of Brazil, and In favor of China, and 


against the U. S. 

1842 - - $6,853,293 

1843 (nine months) 3,026,810 

1844 - - 7,023,640 


against the U. S. 
13,347,312 
2,155,370 
4,065,554 


against the U. S. 
$3,490,248 
1,966,608 
3,174,314 


Total. 

$12,690,853' 
■ 7,148,788 
14,263,508 


$15,903,743 $9,568,236 • $8,631,170 $34,103,149 

Here is a large balance of trade— amounting, in the aggregate, for the two years -and nine months, to 
the sum of $34,103,149 against the United States, -and in favor of three nations possessing, compara-- 


39 



tirely, but little foreign commerce. Now, how did the United States get the means .to pay this debt? It 
was by selling to other nations enough more than she took of them to pay the debts which she owed to 
tiiose ot which she bought more than she sold to them. During the same period, the balances of the 
United otates against England and her dependencies were as follows, viz: 

^ • Balance against England, and in favor of the U. S* 

1842 - - - • . . . . $1.3, 693, 607 

1843 (nine months) 17,923,253 

1844 16,262,754 

L_J i 


$.47,879,614 

These large balances against England enabled the United States to pay tjie balances which she owed to Spain, Brazil* 
Unina, and other countries. Great Britain, in her turn, accumulated balances against other nations ; and thus, in the circle 
of trade, all nations make ari exchange of equivalents. Each, in the long run, loses notliing ; and each is enriched by the 
amount of its annual industry beyond the cost of its annual consumption. 

I will devote a few moments to the consideration of the effects which a high tarifi' has upon the monetary system of the 
nation. ^ 

The currency of this country is made up of a mixture of gold, silver, and paper money. The relation which paper has 
to the precious metals is as 1 to 3, at the lowest ratio. Sometimes it is much higher than that. All know the tendency of 
the paper system to expansion. As the power to increase or to diminish the volume of paper money is substantially 
vested in those bodies which manufacture it, viz : the banks, they can increase or decrease it at pleasure. 

Hitherto, with the exception of the single year during which the s,ub-treasury system was in operation, the Government 
of the United States has deposited its revenue in the banks of the country. As a surplus of public money, more or less in 
amount, is constantly lying in tlie banks, they regard it as equivalent to so much capital paid in, and make it the basis of 
an increase of their business, of an extension of their loans to the community, and of an expansion of their circulation. 
This expansion of the volume of currency tends to increase the nominal prices of all descriptions of property — of domes- 
tic manufactures as well as of everything else—until finally the prices of all fabrics get so high that the foreign importer 
can bring his goods, vyhich are prohibited when prices run iow,to our market, and successfully compete with the domestic 
manufacturer. But, instead of taking our produce in exchange for the foreign article, and exporting it abroad to settle.his 
account with the foreign manufacturer, in consequence of the prices being higher in this country than the prices of the 
same articles in foreign countries, the importer is obliged to carry away specie, and pay it to the foreign manufacturer. 
This reinoves llie substratum of the paper issues in tbis country, causes a sudden contraction of our paper circulation, a 
fall in prices and wages, ending in the distress, bankruptcy, .ind ruin of thousands. Thus, a high tariff defeats itself in the 
end ; hut, in its explosion, it inflicts incalculable injury upon the community vthich arc its victims. 

Every protective tariff which has ever been adopted by our Government, has resulted in just such a catastrophe ; and 
the present tariff will so result if permitted to run on to its crisis. 

I now pass on to consider the circumstances under which the present tariff was enacted. 

In the first place, it was passed at a very late period in the second session of the 27th Congress, when there was but 
little time given to discuss its multifarious details ; having been introduced and passed immediately after the veto of a 
former bill. 

Secondly, it was admitted by those who voted for it, that it was very defective — that it was too high in many of its pro- 
visions, and should and would be amended on the very first opportunity. 

Thirdly, the democratic senators, including Messrs. Buchanan, Wright, and Williams, who voted for it, believed that, 
if it was not passed, there would be no law in existence which would enable the Government to collect its revenues, de- 
claring their dislike to the bill when they gave their votes for it. 

Mr. Buchanan said : “ It is a bill which I do not approve, and for which I would not vote, were it not for the present un- 
paralleled condition of the existing law, the treasury, and the country. I had earnestly hoped that it might be modified 
and amended by the Senate, in such a manner as to render it more acceptable ; but in this I have been utterly disappointed.’* 

Again, Mr. Buchanan said : “ I shall accept this [bill] now, as much the least of Uie two evils, and look forward with 
hope to better times for an adjustment of the tariff on a scale more consonant with all the great and various interests of 
the Union, without regard to sections.” 

Mr. Wright, taking a similar view of the bill to that which Mr. Buchanan expressed, said : ‘‘The alternative presented, 
then, is this bill or none ; and the deep and deliberate conviction of his mind was, that this bill should pass, bad and load- 
ed with defects as he believed it to he, rather than that none should pass. 

Mr. Williams, of Maine, in expressing his determination to vote for the bill, said : “ I need not say that the bill, as a 
whole, is highly objectionable to me, and, as I believe, to a majority of my constituents and the country.” 

How ditierent the noblQ»and eloquent language of the Hon. Perry Smith, senator from Connecticut. He said, on the 
passage of the bill: “ Whence come the outcries about the distress of the country and famishing laborers.^ Was it from 
the agriculturists of the country? Was it the hardy yeomanry, who depended on their hands, their own unaided energies, 
and, in their indomitable love of independence, disdained to cringe and supplicate for support at the expense of others? 
No ; such men appreciated the American character too well to become suppliants to power. These oiitcrids come from a 
widely different — a degenerate — a hot-bed class — or, rather, from speculators and monopolists, who, for thefr own selfish 
ends, reared up these hot beds, and fattened and grew rich upon the labors which wasted the energies and destroyed the 
true American spirit of their dependants. For the further aggrandizement of such monopolists he was called upon to vote 
for this bill. And what was its proposition ’ — for it could not be denied that it was a measure for protection. It is a pro- 
position to lax the hardy freemen of this Union, who trust to their own industry alone for their support, and make them 
pay nearly double price for every imported article which enters into the consumption of their families, that the rich mo- 
nopolists may grow richer, and their dependants may become more dependant and more numerous. Where was such a 
system to end, but in the discouragement, diminution, and destruction of that hardy race, best calculated to uphold our 
republican institutions, and the multiplication of aristocratic distinctions between wealthy monopolists and paupered de- 
pendants, which must, sooner or later, if such a system is promoted by the General Government, lead to the gradual de- 
cay and final dissolution of liberty. Could he, then, be expected to vote for a measure which was calculated to foster and 
protect monopoly and dependance, and to break down and oppress equality and independence? No measure should re- 
ceive bis support, the result of which would be to build up an aristocracy of monopolists, under the pretext of protecting 
the laborers xvftom they had reduced to the stale of paupers. It was not these laborers who were to receive the benefit of 
this protection, but Uieir taskmasters. This would be but the building up of a power to sap the very foundations of the 
free institutions of their country. It was to stimulate the contest between those who live upon their rfwn labor, and those 
who live upon the labor of others ; with this difference — that the latter were to have the bounty of Government, and the 
former were to stand the contest on tlieir own resources, under fearful odds.” 

Just and patriotic sentiments from one living in the midst of the very hot-bed of manufacturing monopoly, w’hose prom- 
inent features he so graphically portrayed. 

Such were the declarations of democratic senators on the passage of the present tariffVlhe three first of whom voted for 
it, protesting against its defects, and the last against it. 

In thp House of Representatives forty whigs voted against the bill ; among whom was the Speaker, the late Hon. John 
White, of Kentucky, and ex-Pre.«ideiit Adams. 

Should a law, admitted, by those who voted for it, to abound in defects, passed under such circumstances, and voted 
against by forty of the party who now claim to be its peculiar friends, be permitted to remain upon the statute-book. " 
to inflict oppression and injustice upon the people? It is for a democratic Congress to answer. 


7 am ff'^c to confess, that I am not one who finds, in either the moral or political tendencies of tiie manufacturin'* -.tK. 
tem. an;, thins: to admire or to applaud. ^ 

In every country in the world, where the system flourishes to any constderable extent, we’ find the creatsst dis;*arit> of 
condition existing among the people. On the one hand, we see the capitalists and employers, few in iimnber, but rol ing 
in o]iulence, exercising the power of despots over their dependant operatives and laborers ; and, on the side of the latt 
we witness nothing but poverty, dependence, and cringing servility. 

The manufacturing system, where it has long prevailed, has proved to be worse than the feudal system of the middle 
ages. The world then witnessed the relation of the feudal baron and his 'liege or va.ssal. But that relation was hot alio- ^ 
gether one of degradation and debasement. It was but one remove from the patriarchal government. The lord protected " 
his vassal; and the vassal, in return, rendered service to the lord. Look at the legions of hardy yeomanry which the 
Earl of Warwick — the great king-ruaker in English history — could summon to his standard. He was the patron and pro- 
tector of his temfhtry ; and they, in return, revered him and fought for him. There is no such paternal and chivalric rela- 
tion existing between the maiiufacUiring monopolist and his hireling vassal. It is despotism and oppression ou one.side — 
degradation and humiliation on tJie other. 

Better far would it be for our country to rear a race of hardy yeomanry and industrious self relying mechanics. It is the 
stalwart arm of the independent man that strikes the blow tor freedom. The heart of such a man can never be crushed 
by the heel of oppression.. And it is such men who form the rampart of defence for their country, arid the impenetrable 
parapet around the citadel of liberty. 

And now, althougli I have much more to say, I would respectfully announce that, with this number, my present labors 
cease. VVhai I have written has cost me far more of painful research and fatiguing toil than the most indulgent of my 
readers would be likely to imagine. But I have pursued the subject earnestly, because I believed that a full development 
of the true features of the tariff system was due to truth and justice, and to the cause of liberty. 

On reviewing my labors, I discover no principle avowed which I would retract ; no fact stated which is not in my hon- 
est belief true, and for which I have not given the best authority. Believing the protective system to be dbnnded in in- 
justice and wrong, and tending to the destruction of republican equality and freedom, I have done all which my limited 
time and means would permit me to do, to impress that belief upon those who may honor me with an examination of my 
arguments and illustrations; in the hope that, through the representatives of the people and the States, now about to as- 
semble in Congress, it may be immediately repealed. BUNDELCUND. 


